00:00 - HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE MAY

00:02 - 2022 ORAL ARGUMENT SESSION OF

00:04 - THE SUPREME COURT OF

00:05 - PENNSYLVANIA. I AM TURNING JOHN

00:07 - HAIR

00:08 - FROM PHILADELPHIA. AND I'M

00:09 - GOING TO PREVIEW FOR YOU THE 5

00:11 - CASES YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR

00:13 - ARGUED IN THE SUPREME COURT

00:14 - TODAY. BUT I'D FIRST LIKE TO

00:16 - TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE

00:17 - COURT ITSELF. THIS SUPREME

00:20 - COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AS ITS

00:21 - NAME SUGGESTS IS THE HIGHEST

00:23 - COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA.

00:25 - IT CONSISTS OF 7 JUSTICES WHO

00:27 - ARE ELECTED IN STATEWIDE

00:29 - ELECTIONS FOR 10 YEAR TERMS.

00:32 - THEY THEN STAND FOR WHAT ARE

00:34 - CALLED

00:34 - RETENTION ELECTIONS WHICH IS

00:36 - ESSENTIALLY A THUMBS UP OR

00:37 - THUMBS DOWN VOTE OF THE

00:38 - ELECTORATE ON WHETHER THE

00:39 - JUSTICE CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE

00:41 - FOR ANOTHER 10 YEAR.

00:42 - TERM, THERE ARE CURRENTLY 4

00:45 - MALE AND 3 FEMALE JUSTICES ON

00:47 - THE COURT AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE

00:49 - IS MAX BAER FROM PITTSBURGH.

00:51 - BUT THE COURT IS A LOT MORE

00:52 - THAN ITS

00:53 - STRUCTURAL DETAILS. IT IS THE

00:55 - OLDEST APPELLATE COURT IN NORTH

00:57 - AMERICA. IT TRACES ITS HISTORY

00:59 - BACK TO A STATUTE IN 1722.

01:03 - MAY

01:04 - 22ND, 1722 ACTUALLY WHICH MEANS

01:07 - THAT THIS COMING SUNDAY THE

01:08 - COURT TURNS

01:09 - 300 YEARS OLD. THE COURT

01:11 - ACTUALLY TRACES ITS ROOTS BACK

01:13 - TO 1684 AND WILLIAM PENN WHEN

01:15 - HE ARRIVED HERE IN

01:17 - 1681. BUT THE STATUTE IN 1722

01:20 - IS WHAT WE'RE CELEBRATING

01:22 - BECAUSE THAT FORMALLY CREATED

01:23 - THE COURT AND THAT IS WHY WE

01:24 - ARE HERE IN OLD CITY

01:26 - OLD CITY HALL WHICH IS A

01:28 - COMPONENT OF THE INDEPENDENCE

01:30 - HALL COMPLEX AND THERE'S A 2

01:33 - DAY EVENT AT THE NEIGHBORING A

01:34 - NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER

01:36 - TO CELEBRATE THE COURTS ARE

01:38 - REALLY REMARKABLE HISTORY.

01:40 - THE COURT GETS FROM

01:43 - THOUSANDS OF LITIGANTS EACH

01:44 - YEAR TO

01:45 - ACCEPT APPEALS. BUT 7 JUSTICES

01:48 - OBVIOUSLY CANNOT HANDLE THAT

01:49 - MANY APPEAL SO THEY SELECT A

01:51 - HANDFUL OF THE MOST IMPORTANT

01:53 - CASES. THEY TAKE A HANDFUL OF

01:55 - THOSE CASES AND THEY ALLOW ORAL

01:57 - ARGUMENT IN THOSE CASES

01:59 - IN YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR 5 OF

02:00 - THOSE CASES TODAY, THE FIRST

02:02 - CASE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IS

02:04 - CALLED COMMONWEALTH OF

02:05 - PENNSYLVANIA VERSE JET COM JOE

02:07 - KWAN HUMPHREY

02:08 - AND WHEN YOU SEE THE

02:09 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN

02:11 - THE NAME OF A CASE THAT

02:12 - TYPICALLY MEANS THAT IT'S A

02:13 - CRIMINAL CASE, NOT ALWAYS BUT

02:15 - GENERALLY AND THIS IS A

02:17 - CRIMINAL CASE. IT STEMS FROM

02:19 - THESE FACTS IN 2017. THE

02:22 - DEFENDANT MISTER HUMPHREY WAS

02:24 - A PRISONER WHEN HE ALLEGEDLY

02:26 - THREW URINE AND SPIT ON A

02:28 - CORRECTIONS OFFICER. HE WAS

02:30 - CHARGED WITH AGGRAVATED

02:32 - HARASSMENT BY PRISONER.

02:34 - AFTER A

02:35 - PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION. THE

02:37 - TRIAL COURT RULED THAT MR.

02:39 - HUMPHREY WAS NOT MENTALLY

02:41 - COMPETENT TO

02:41 - STAND TRIAL. THE TRIAL COURT

02:44 - ORDERED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT

02:46 - BUT BECAUSE MISTER HUMPHREY

02:47 - WAS A PRISONER OF THE STATE

02:49 - HOSPITAL WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE

02:51 - MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

02:52 - ANOTHER ONE AND A HALF YEARS

02:54 - PAST. IN 2020.

02:56 - THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE

02:58 - CHARGES AGAINST MISTER HUMPHREY

03:00 - FINDING THAT HE WAS NOT LIKELY

03:02 - TO

03:02 - REGAIN CONFIDENCE. THE

03:04 - DISMISSAL WAS BASED ON A

03:06 - PARTICULAR STATUTE OF THE

03:07 - MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES

03:09 - PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE AND THE

03:12 - LANGUAGE OF THAT STATUTORY

03:13 - PROVISION IS IMPORTANCE I'M

03:15 - GOING TO READ IT VERY BRIEFLY

03:16 - IT'S SECTION 7 '04, 7, 4, 3 E

03:19 - OF THE MENTAL HEALTH

03:20 - PROCEDURES ACT. IT SAYS WHEN

03:22 - THE COURT DETERMINES THAT SUCH

03:24 - PERSON HERE MISTER HUMPHREY HAS

03:26 - REGAINED HIS CONFIDENCE TO

03:28 - PROCEED. THE PROCEEDING SHALL

03:30 - BE REZONED IF THE COURT IS OF

03:32 - THE OPINION THAT BY REASON OF

03:34 - THE PASSAGE OF TIME AND IT'S A

03:35 - FACT UPON THE CRIMINAL

03:37 - PROCEEDINGS, IT WOULD BE UNJUST

03:39 - TO PRINT TO RESUME

03:40 - THE PROSECUTION. THE COURT MAY

03:42 - DISMISS THE CHARGE IN ORDER THE

03:44 - PERSON DISCHARGE

03:45 - THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH THE

03:47 - CHARGES AGAINST MISTER HUMPHREY

03:48 - WERE DISMISSED. THE

03:50 - COMMONWEALTH THAT'S THE

03:51 - PROSECUTOR APPEALED

03:53 - THAT DISMISSAL. THE SUPERIOR

03:56 - COURT WHICH IS THE NEST NEXT

03:57 - LEVEL APPELLATE COURT ABOVE THE

03:59 - TRIAL COURT BUT BELOW THE

04:00 - SUPREME COURT. WE REVERSED THE

04:03 - TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL AND

04:05 - REINSTATED THE CHARGES BASED

04:07 - ON.

04:09 - PRIOR DECISIONS OF THE

04:10 - SUPERIOR COURT WHICH HELD THAT

04:12 - 7, 4 '03 AUTHORIZES DISMISSAL.

04:16 - ONLY IF THE DEFENDANT IS FIRST

04:17 - INCOMPETENT AND

04:19 - THEN REGAINS CONFIDENCE BUT TOO

04:21 - MUCH TIME HAS PASSED TO ALLOW

04:23 - THE PROSECUTION IN OTHER WORDS

04:25 - DEFENDANT MUST REGAIN

04:27 - CONFIDENCE BEFORE THE CHARGES

04:28 - CAN BE DISMISSED. THE SUPREME

04:30 - COURT HAS NOW ALLOWED AN APPEAL

04:32 - TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL

04:34 - COURT CAN DISMISS UNDER SECTION

04:36 - 74 '03 WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS

04:39 - SEVERELY INCOMPETENT AND THE

04:41 - PASSAGE OF TIME ALONE. RENDERS

04:43 - THE PROSECUTION AND JUST LET'S

04:45 - GO TO THE COURTROOM NOW TO HEAR

04:47 - THE ARGUMENT.

04:48 - WE ARE WILL THE CHIEF

04:50 - JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT

04:52 - OF PENNSYLVANIA.

04:55 - OH YEA OH YEA

04:57 - OH YEA.

04:58 - ALL MEN ARE PERSONS WHO STAND

04:59 - BOUND BY RECONNAISSANCE OR WHO

05:01 - OTHERWISE HAVE BUSINESS BEFORE

05:02 - THIS COURT ME NOW HERE AND THEY

05:03 - SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THE

05:05 - COMMONWEALTH AND THIS HONORABLE

05:06 - COURT PLEASE BE SEATED.

05:29 - GOOD MORNING BEFORE YOU

05:30 - BEGIN.

05:32 - THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE

05:34 - THE COURT IS THRILLED. TO

05:37 - CELEBRATE ITS 3100TH

05:39 - ANNIVERSARY.

05:41 - WHICH IS ACTUALLY MAY 22ND.

05:43 - BUT THE CELEBRATIONS TODAY

05:44 - TOMORROW AND FRIDAY.

05:47 - HERE IN THESE WONDERFULLY

05:48 - HISTORIC.

05:50 - BUILDINGS FOR OUR NATION'S

05:51 - FIRST PLACE. WE THANK THE.

05:57 - MARSHALS IN OFFICIALS THAT RUN

06:00 - THE.

06:01 - COMPLEX HERE WITH INDEPENDENCE

06:04 - HALL THIS HISTORIC COURTROOM.

06:06 - WELL, NOBODY SITS ANY LONGER.

06:10 - AND FOR ALLOWING US TO BE HERE.

06:13 - HARKENING BACK TO THE FACT THAT

06:15 - WE'RE 70 YEARS OLDER THAN US

06:17 - SUPREME COURT.

06:19 - AND OUR MEMBERS AND

06:22 - GREAT THINKERS WE'RE VERY MUCH

06:24 - INVOLVED WITH THE WRITING OF

06:26 - THE DECLARATION OF

06:27 - INDEPENDENCE, THE WRITING OF

06:28 - THE CONSTITUTION AND THE

06:29 - SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE

06:31 - JUDICIARY. SO AGAIN WE THANK

06:33 - EVERYBODY WITH THE FEDERAL

06:33 - GOVERNMENT THAT ALLOWED IT WE

06:35 - OBVIOUSLY THINK ALL OF OUR

06:36 - WONDERFUL STAFF, THE WORK

06:38 - ENDLESSLY TO MAKE THIS

06:40 - POSSIBLE. WE WILL THANK THEM

06:42 - AGAIN AS I AM.

06:44 - THE CELEBRATION.

06:46 - PROCEEDS TOMORROW AND FRIDAY AT

06:48 - THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION

06:50 - CENTER.

06:51 - I THIS BOB MONGELUZZI MISTER

06:54 - JAIN HERE MISS THERESA FEET

06:56 - THICKENS SACKS. CHIP BAG OR ALL

07:00 - WORK INSTRUMENTAL IN THE

07:01 - PLANNING AND SO MANY OF THE

07:02 - OTHERS THAT ARE HERE AND OUR

07:04 - OWN JUSTICE. ALI MONDAY.

07:05 - AND OUR ODESSA SALLIE MUNDY

07:07 - ABSOLUTELY THANK YOU JUST A

07:09 - SPOT. WITH

07:12 - THAT WE WE'LL

07:13 - SETTLE IN THE BUSINESS IS NOT A

07:15 - CEREMONIAL SESSION, BUT RATHER

07:17 - A A SESSION OF THE COURT TOO

07:19 - HEAR AND DECIDE CASES.

07:22 - THE FIRST CASE WE HAVE BEFORE

07:24 - US.

07:26 - IF I HAD THE CORRECT TOOK OPEN.

07:27 - THANK YOU. IS UP.

07:30 - COMMONWEALTH VERSUS HUMPHREY.

07:33 - THIS

07:33 - APPEAL PRESENTS THE ISSUE OF

07:35 - WHETHER SECTION 7, 4 '03 E AND

07:38 - THE MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES

07:40 - THAT AFFORD TO TRIAL QUICKLY

07:42 - DISCRETION.

07:44 - TO DISMISS CRIMINAL CHARGES

07:45 - FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT HE

07:47 - WAS INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL

07:48 - IS UNLIKELY TO

07:49 - REGAIN COMPETENCY. IF

07:51 - RECEIVABLE FUTURE ON THE

07:52 - GROUNDS THAT SUCH PROSECUTION

07:54 - WOULD BE UNJUST TO THE PASSAGE

07:56 - OF TIME. THE TRIAL COULD ANSWER

07:58 - THE INQUIRY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE

08:00 - DISMISSED 2 COUNTS OF

08:02 - AGGRAVATED ASSAULT BY A PRISON.

08:04 - THIS FEAR

08:04 - COURT REVERSED. ACCORDING TO

08:06 - THE TRIAL COURT MAY NOT

08:07 - DISMISSED CRIMINAL CHARGES.

08:10 - UNTIL AN INCOMPETENT DEFENDANT

08:12 - REGAINS COMPETENCY.

08:14 - AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE

08:15 - PROSECUTION WOULD BE UNJUST TO

08:17 - THE PASSAGE OF TIME.

08:19 - IF THAT'S A FAIR APPROXIMATION

08:21 - OF WHY

08:21 - WE'RE HERE WHAT YOU PROBABLY

08:23 - PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PROCEED OF

08:25 - A FAIR APPROXIMATION WITH ONE

08:26 - NOTATION OF THE CHARGES THAT

08:28 - ISSUE WERE AGGRAVATED

08:29 - HARASSMENT HIS ALLEGED 5 YEARS

08:31 - AGO

08:31 - TO OUT.

08:33 - AROUND HERE AND ON THE CEO AT

08:35 - I BELIEVE IN SAID BETTER.

08:37 - AND WHEN TRANSFERRED TO SA

08:39 - ROCKY ACROSS THE

08:40 - ROAD THERE SPIT ON ANOTHER CEO

08:43 - ABOUT A MONTH OR 2 LATER.

08:46 - SO IT'S IT'S

08:47 - NOT AGGRAVATED. SO IT'S IT'S A

08:50 - IT'S NOT A FELONY WATER TO

08:52 - OFFENSE FOUND IN 3 EVENTS WE'RE

08:55 - STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF 7 YEARS

08:56 - WHICH IS WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT

08:59 - RELATED TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US

09:00 - IN ANY EVENT WRECKED LEAST GO

09:01 - AHEAD AND PROCEED.

09:04 - A BIT BASICALLY THAT THAT IS

09:06 - FAIR ASSESSMENT THERE WAS A.

09:11 - WE A NOTICE OF.

09:14 - INSANITY AND AS FOR

09:15 - COMPETENCY EVALUATION. COMING

09:17 - OFF THAT AT THE TIME OUR REPORT

09:20 - WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT.

09:22 - WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT

09:24 - THE MAN WAS INCOMPETENT TO

09:26 - PROCEED. HE HAD A LENGTHY

09:27 - HISTORY OF A BIPOLAR DISORDER

09:29 - WITH

09:29 - PSYCHOTIC DELUSIONS. A

09:32 - PERSECUTION COMPLEX SOLUTIONS

09:34 - OF GRAND YEAR. I HAD

09:38 - US.

09:39 - A PROBLEMATIC INDIVIDUAL FOR

09:41 - THE DOT TO COPE WITH IT.

09:43 - THE RECOMMENDATION OF

09:46 - THE PSYCHOLOGIST WAS ACCEPTED

09:47 - THAT HE NEEDED TO BE RESTORED

09:49 - TO COMPETENCY. WE INITIALLY

09:51 - THOUGHT THAT THAT COULD BE DONE

09:52 - WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF

09:53 - CORRECTIONS BUT IT COULD NOT

09:55 - THERE WAS A HERE HEARING A YEAR

09:57 - LATER WHICH THAT CAME

09:59 - TO LIGHT. THE ALTERNATIVE WAS

10:02 - TO TRANSFER HIM TO

10:03 - TORRANCE STATE HOSPITAL FOR THE

10:05 - DHS

10:07 - USE THEIR RESOURCES TO RESTORE

10:08 - HIM TO COMPETENCY BUT IT CAME

10:11 - OUT THAT TORRANCE WOULD NOT

10:12 - ACCEPT HIM UNTIL

10:15 - A PAROLE. WE'RE MAXED OUT OF

10:18 - THE SENTENCE. AT THAT TIME

10:20 - PAROLE. HIS MINIMUM DAY WAS

10:22 - ABOUT TO YEAR 2. A LITTLE OVER

10:24 - 2 YEARS AWAY. HIS MINIMUM DATE

10:26 - WAS SET. IRONICALLY LAST WEEK

10:29 - AND HE STILL IS

10:30 - RESIDING IN THE STATE

10:31 - CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM I BELIEVE

10:33 - HE'S BEEN TRANSFERRED TO

10:34 - PHOENIX FROM SCI GREENE.

10:37 - THE COURT AFTER HEARING THIS

10:40 - BELIEVING THAT IT.

10:44 - IT ENCOMPASSES HE WAS SO

10:45 - PROFOUND THAT.

10:48 - IT'S VERY UNLIKELY HE DIDN'T

10:50 - REMEMBER.

10:52 - 5 OR MORE

10:53 - YEARS EARLIER IF RESTORED TO

10:55 - COMPENSATE SOME POINT YOU

10:58 - 7, 4,

11:01 - MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT COULD

11:02 - BE UNJUST TO TRY HIM. ON

11:05 - APPEAL. PAMELA SPIRIT COURT.

11:08 - WE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE LOWER

11:10 - COURT'S FINDINGS

11:12 - COMPETENCY WAS NOT LIKELY TO BE

11:14 - RESTORED WITHIN THE NEAR FUTURE

11:16 - AND THAT IT WOULD BE UNJUST.

11:18 - THE DEFENDANT TO TRY THEM.

11:20 - INSTEAD RELIED ON

11:24 - 1988 DECISION GARGLE WHICH I

11:27 - READ 7. 4 '03.

11:32 - IN THE

11:32 - DES JUMPED WHEN THE CON JOHN

11:35 - DIV. PRESUMPTION

11:37 - OF RESUMPTION OF PROCEEDINGS OR

11:40 - DISMISSAL.

11:42 - IS THE TITLE OF THIS SUBSECTION

11:44 - THEY'RE READING IT IN THE CAN

11:45 - JUST HAVE TO

11:45 - SAY THAT THE RESTORATION TO

11:48 - COMPETENCY IN RESUMING THE

11:49 - PROCEEDING

11:50 - IS UP AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT

11:52 - TO ACTUALLY THE COURT'S

11:53 - AUTHORITY TO DISMISS IT.

11:55 - THERE ARE SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH

11:57 - THAT ANALYSIS. IT'S.

12:03 - IT'S BASICALLY DESCRIBED THAT

12:05 - IN THE BY MAKE US OUR BRIEF.

12:10 - THAT TO INTERPRET THAT FASHION.

12:14 - REALLY VIOLATES RULES

12:15 - CONSTRUCTION THAT.

12:20 - AND THEY

12:20 - USE LEIBY JUST THAT

12:23 - PARTICULAR SUBJECT AND IN AN

12:24 - AMBIGUOUS LEE DESCRIBED 2

12:26 - ATTORNEYS, THE COURT HAS BEEN

12:29 - EITHER.

12:33 - PROSECUTION IF THERE'S A

12:34 - FINDING OF CONFIDENCE OR YOU

12:36 - CAN DISMISS COUNCIL. YES

12:38 - QUESTION.

12:40 - MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE

12:41 - ONLY EVALUATION WAS THE INITIAL

12:43 - EVALUATION. THE MEETING THE

12:46 - CLIENT

12:47 - INCOMPETENT CORRECT THAT'S THE

12:48 - ONLY ONE OF THOSE ASKED FOR NOT

12:50 - THE ONLY ONE THEY WANT. AND

12:52 - BASED UPON ON THE.

12:55 - STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF

12:56 - THE STATUTE WHERE DO YOU FIND

12:59 - IT WITHIN

12:59 - THE STATUTE THAT THERE SHOULD

13:01 - NOT BE A SUBSEQUENT

13:03 - EVALUATION APPEARANCE OF THE

13:06 - DEFENDANT BEFORE

13:07 - THE JUDGE TO FIND AN

13:08 - APPROPRIATE EVALUATOR SOMEBODY

13:11 - ASKED ASKED FOR NOBODY'S ASKED

13:13 - FOR IT. SO HE'LL JUST ISN'T

13:15 - THERE FOR WORK TO BE CONSIDERED

13:17 - THAT THE FENCE TECHNIQUE TO

13:19 - SEEK

13:19 - AN INCOMPETENT WE'RE TO HAVE

13:21 - SOMEONE DEEMED INCOMPETENT ARE

13:23 - YOU SAYING IT'S NOT A BURDEN.

13:25 - QUICKLY ISSUE THAT'S WHO'S

13:26 - BURDEN IS IT. THEN

13:29 - 2 WE CONTINUE THE EVALUATION OR

13:31 - SEEK AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION

13:34 - WHERE SOME JAIL BASE COMPETENCY

13:36 - RESTORATION.

13:38 - IN ORDER TO DEEM THE

13:40 - CLIENT WEATHER REDEEMABLE OR

13:43 - NOT REDEEMABLE.

13:45 - ANYBODY BUT YEAH, I'M NOT SURE

13:46 - THAT THE LEGISLATURE PUT IT

13:48 - PARTICULAR BURDEN TO CONTINUE

13:50 - TO WELL THERE IS THAT THAT'S MY

13:51 - CONCERN THE LAW HAS NO BURDEN

13:53 - IT WAS JUST SO.

13:56 - WHY MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT.

14:00 - 7, 4 '03 BIG.

14:03 - PERMITS THE STAY OF THE

14:06 - PRATT, THE PROSECUTION.

14:08 - IT PERMITS. A MOTION TO HAVE

14:11 - THE INDIVIDUAL RELEASED FROM

14:13 - JAIL.

14:16 - A RESTORATION OF CONFIDENCE.

14:18 - ALL RIGHT.

14:19 - YOU'RE ARGUING THAT THE COURT

14:21 - HAS THIS IN CURRENT RIGHT TO.

14:26 - DISMISS THE CASE.

14:34 - THIS THIS INHERENT AUTHORITY

14:36 - DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS

14:37 - STATUTE.

14:39 - HE MUST REGAIN HIS

14:41 - CONFIDENCE AND THE QUESTION I

14:43 - HAVE FOR YOU TO DO NOT SEEK

14:44 - DISMISSAL UNDER 74 '03.

14:48 - DATE WHICH SPECIFICALLY

14:50 - DISCUSSES THE DISCHARGE.

14:53 - SHOULD AS

14:54 - DETERMINE WHETHER THEY'RE

14:55 - SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT HE

14:57 - WILL NOT OBTAIN CAPACITY.

15:01 - SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS AND

15:03 - ALONG ABOUT WAY WHAT DO YOU

15:04 - PURSUE IT I FIND YOUR AVENUE

15:06 - FOR REMEDY TO BE INCORRECT

15:09 - SELECTION OF THE

15:12 - 3 STATUTE. WE THOUGHT I WAS YOU

15:15 - I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHY DID

15:17 - YOU GO

15:18 - WITH AS OPPOSED TO DAY WHICH IS

15:21 - REALLY ASKING FOR A DISMISSAL

15:23 - FOR LONG-TERM IN CAPACITY.

15:28 - WE I GUESS WE DIDN'T

15:29 - READ MCARDLE WAR

15:31 - THINK THAT.

15:32 - YEAH IT WAS IT

15:34 - WAS APPLICABLE.

15:39 - IT READS WHATEVER PERSON HAS

15:41 - BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME HAS

15:42 - BEEN DETERMINED TO BE

15:43 - INCOMPETENT TO PROCEED AS HAS

15:44 - YOUR CLIENT. HE SHALL NOT FOR

15:47 - THAT REASON ALONE BE

15:48 - DETAINED PRETRIAL NEWARK SHOW

15:51 - HE IN ANY EVENT BE PAYING ON A

15:53 - CRIMINAL CHARGE LONGER THAN THE

15:56 - REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME

15:57 - NECESSARY

15:58 - TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S A

16:00 - SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT HE

16:02 - WILL RETAIN THEIR CAPACITY IN

16:04 - THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. BUT AT

16:06 - THE TURN IT SHALL BE DISCHARGED

16:09 - SO I GUESS WHAT RIGHT.

16:12 - I TAKE YOUR POINT

16:13 - YOUR HONOR. I THINK THE REASON

16:15 - WE DIDN'T DO THAT WAS BECAUSE

16:16 - HE'S SERVING ANOTHER SENTENCE.

16:18 - AND WAS GOING TO BE

16:19 - DISCHARGED AND GOOD BUT OUR

16:21 - READING OF AND FOR 3

16:24 - E IS IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE YOU

16:26 - DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO

16:28 - UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGE.

16:30 - THE PRIOR CONVICTION.

16:32 - THIS STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO

16:35 - YOUR CAKES THE STATUTE YOU

16:38 - PLANE. IS

16:40 - APPLICABLE I.

16:41 - I'M HAVING A HARD TIME

16:42 - FINDING HOW THAT IS AND I'M

16:44 - ASKING YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY

16:46 - EVEN THAT TRUMP BIG BECAUSE

16:48 - THAT'S THAT'S.

16:49 - THAT PARTICULAR SUBSECTION

16:50 - GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO.

16:54 - 3 OF THE COURT TO DISMISS IT IF

16:56 - YOU TOOK THE INCIDENT UNJUST.

16:58 - RIGHT WHEN WE INTERVIEWED THE

17:00 - STATUTE IS WRITTEN AS

17:01 - REQUIRING.

17:03 - A RESUMPTION OF COMPETENCY TO

17:05 - BE A CONDITION. SO IT YOUR

17:07 - POSITION THAT IS

17:09 - YOUR POSITION IN THAT THE

17:10 - PARTICULAR FELONY CHARGES FOR

17:12 - WHICH YOUR CLIENT WAS BEING

17:13 - DETAINED.

17:15 - SHOULD HAVE RESULTED IN HIS

17:17 - COMPLETE DISCHARGE FROM

17:18 - INCARCERATION FOR THE PRIOR

17:20 - CONVICTION NOW. THAT'S WHAT I

17:23 - MEAN.

17:25 - ASK A QUESTION I I STILL

17:27 - HAVEN'T GOT AN ANSWER AS TO WHY

17:29 - PART.

17:31 - NO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER JUSTICE

17:32 - TALKATIVE VERY UNCERTAIN WHAT

17:35 - THIS SUBSECTION WE WE 500

17:37 - SPECIFICALLY GIVES THE

17:38 - AUTHORITY OF THE COURT.

17:41 - DISMISSED THE POLICE PROCESSED

17:42 - THE PROSECUTION WOULD BE

17:43 - UNJUST. THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED

17:45 - FOR THAT REALLY.

17:47 - DID YOU REALLY MISS THAT HE

17:49 - RELATES TO CRIMINAL ATTENTION

17:50 - NOT DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES.

17:52 - ALL RIGHT. THAT'S TIED HAS A

17:54 - QUESTION FOR YOU.

17:56 - AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION

17:59 - AND THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER.

18:01 - THE

18:01 - TRIAL COURT BELIEVED THAT HE

18:04 - FOUND AS A MATTER

18:06 - OF FACT THAT YOUR CLIENT WOULD

18:08 - NOT REGAIN.

18:10 - COMPETENCY

18:12 - AND IF YOUR CLIENT DID AT SOME

18:15 - POINT IN THE FUTURE OR GAIN.

18:17 - COMPETENCY.

18:19 - IT WOULD BE AT SUCH A TIME IN

18:22 - THE FUTURE THAT YOUR CLIENT

18:23 - WOULD SUFFER PREJUDICE BY THE

18:25 - PASSAGE

18:26 - OF TIME AND THEREFORE DISMISSAL

18:28 - WAS IN ORDER AND YOUR POSITION

18:30 - IS THAT THE SUPERIOR COURT

18:33 - AND WE SHOULD NOT SECOND GUESS

18:35 - THAT FACTUAL DETERMINATION BY

18:37 - THE TRIAL COURT IS THAT

18:38 - CORRECT.

18:40 - I YEAH I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN

18:41 - DO THAT UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW

18:42 - AND THAT YOUR ARGUMENT AS THOSE

18:44 - ARE THAT'S WHERE ITS FINDINGS.

18:46 - THEY WERE CHALLENGED BY THE

18:47 - A PANEL BELOW THE FINDINGS

18:49 - WERE CHALLENGE RIGHT AND THAT

18:51 - JUST WHETHER OR NOT THEIR

18:52 - SPECIALTY AUTHORITY TO

18:53 - DISCHARGE HIM PRIOR TO THE.

18:57 - RESTORATION OF CONFIDENCE.

19:00 - CAN I GO BACK TO WHY YOUR

19:01 - OPENING REMARKS AND I THINK I

19:03 - GUESS

19:06 - APPEARS TO REQUIRE

19:08 - REEXAMINATION EVERY 90 DAYS AT

19:10 - LEAST.

19:11 - WHEN SEARS FINDING OF

19:13 - INCOMPETENCY AND A REPORT IN

19:15 - THE TRIAL JUDGE DID THAT NOT

19:17 - HAPPEN HERE.

19:18 - NOBODY ASKED NOBODY ASKED WE

19:20 - ASKED THAT COMMON THING THAT'S

19:21 - FOR THAT AND I KNOW IT'S

19:23 - IT'S SHOUT. IT'S NOT A QUESTION

19:24 - OF ASKING FOR ITS SUBSECTION C

19:26 - PROVIDE. WE'RE FOLLOWING SUCH

19:28 - DETERMINATION. THE

19:29 - PERSON AWAY SHALL BE REEXAMINED

19:32 - NOT LESS THAN EVERY 90 DAYS.

19:35 - WHY FIGHT I JUST POINTED BY

19:37 - THE COURT AND A REPORT IN THE

19:40 - EXAMINATION SHALL BE PROVIDED

19:41 - TO THE COURT PERIOD. NOT THAT

19:43 - I'M ON MOTION. IT SHALL BE

19:46 - SALMON EVERY 90 DAYS.

19:48 - WHICH IN THE REAL WORLD

19:50 - DOESN'T HAPPEN YEAH EXCEPT FOR

19:52 - THE FACT THAT IF THAT DIDN'T

19:54 - HAPPEN. PICKS THEY MAY BE PART

19:56 - OF THE REASON WE'RE HERE.

20:02 - YES AND THE COURT TO GO TO THE

20:03 - EXPENSIVE BRING

20:05 - DOCTORS KILLED. I CAN DO

20:07 - ANYTHING ON MEETING WITH THE

20:08 - LEGISLATURE HAS HAD SHOWERS

20:10 - HAPPENED.

20:12 - IT'S NOT THE FIRST

20:13 - TIME TO FUNDED MANDATE IN THE

20:14 - HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT

20:17 - WORD SAID THAT SHOUGH WAS.

20:20 - I JUST I JUST I THINK THAT

20:22 - PLAYED A ROLE IN A DUI CASE NO

20:23 - I WOULDN'T GO THERE.

20:26 - ASK YOU

20:28 - IN THIS IS SOMEWHAT IN FURTHER

20:29 - AND SO WITH JUST A STOCKY AND

20:31 - THEN JUST AS BRIBES TO

20:32 - TALK ABOUT. I'D THOUGHT IT

20:35 - SEEMS TO ME AND TELL ME IF I'M

20:36 - RIGHT OR WRONG THAT THIS CASE

20:37 - IS NOT ABOUT TENSION

20:39 - OR INCARCERATION

20:41 - BECAUSE YOUR CLIENT IS

20:42 - INCARCERATED ON OTHER CHARGES

20:44 - FOR GOODNESS KNOWS HOW LONG.

20:46 - THIS CASE IS ABOUT WHETHER

20:48 - CHARGES SHOULD REMAIN PENDING

20:50 - AGAINST HIM RIGHT IS

20:51 - THAT FAIR, LET'S HEAR

20:53 - IT IN THEIR FORT THAT'S I THINK

20:55 - WHY NOT THAT IT'S MY JOB TO

20:56 - HELP YOU WIFE OUT UNDER THE

20:58 - RATHER THE DEA THESE ABOUT

20:59 - GETTING OUT OF JAIL. HE'S ABOUT

21:01 - GETTING CHARGES

21:02 - TRUCK RIGHT DOES IT HELP YOUR

21:04 - CASE AT ALL HOW IMPORTANT IS IT

21:06 - TO YOU THAT THE TITLE

21:08 - OF E HAS THE IQ.

21:11 - THIS JUMP TO OR IN THERE.

21:13 - SO I

21:17 - TRYING TO MAKE THAT THOUGH

21:18 - THAT'S MY STATUTORY

21:19 - CONSTRUCTION ARE YOU KNOW I

21:20 - THINK WE PREETY SAYS RECENT

21:21 - RIGHT.

21:22 - RESUMPTION OF PERCEIVED OR

21:23 - DISMISSAL THAN IT IS TO SEND

21:25 - THINGS. ONE IS PRISM SUPERSEDES

21:26 - THE SECOND IS DISMISSED.

21:28 - THAT'S WHAT YOU GET YOU SEE IT

21:30 - THAT'S THAT'S MY BODY DOESN'T

21:32 - REALLY LEND A T DO YOU ANY GOOD

21:34 - BECAUSE I GOT UNDER THE

21:35 - CRIMINAL CODE. THE WAY THE WAY

21:37 - AT THE LAST LOOK AT THE FIRST

21:38 - TO SAY.

21:41 - THIS IS THE AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE

21:43 - IT'S IN THE DES DESTRUCTIVE OR

21:45 - DISMISSED.

21:47 - CLAIRE MANY THAT STATUTE IS THE

21:48 - JUDGE CAN EITHER.

21:50 - LISTEN ENTERTAIN A MOTION FIND

21:53 - THAT HE'S CONFIDENT AND PRESENT

21:55 - RESUME

21:55 - THE CASE OR YOU CAN DISMISS IT

21:57 - AND THINKS JUSTICE REQUIRES

21:59 - THAT.

22:00 - THAT'S THE FIRST THAT'S THE

22:01 - FIRST REASON TO SAFEGUARD

22:02 - WAS WRONG. SECOND REASON IS IF

22:05 - IF THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN

22:06 - THE STATUTE RULE AND IT

22:08 - REQUIRES YOU TO INTERPRET IT

22:09 - AGAINST THE STATE IN FAVOR OF

22:12 - THE DEFENDANTS ARE DUE

22:12 - TO ACCEPT THE PREMISE IS THAT

22:15 - MATTERED FOR THAT ARGUE THAT

22:16 - THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ASK

22:18 - AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO

22:19 - THIS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE

22:20 - TO GO.

22:20 - DO A LITTLE MORE THAN WE

22:22 - COULD DO PRE ARGUMENT DOES IT

22:24 - MATTER FOR THAT ARGUMENT

22:25 - RELENTED E WHICH IS ONE OF THE

22:27 - GUIDEPOST IN

22:27 - CRIMINAL LAW THAT THIS IS

22:29 - BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH

22:30 - ACT RATHER THAN CRIMINAL CODE.

22:32 - ALL RIGHT. I I DO I DO I DO NOT

22:35 - SEE HOW THAT WOULD MATTER

22:36 - BECAUSE THE MENTAL HEALTH

22:37 - ISSUES THAT DEALS WITH IT.

22:39 - THE LAST

22:39 - CELEBRITY OF A MENTAL HEALTH

22:41 - PATIENT, BUT AGAIN WE'RE NOT

22:43 - THAT I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT WITH

22:44 - YOU WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT

22:44 - LOSS OF LIBERTY THAT'S THE

22:45 - POINT WE JUST MADE UP.

22:48 - WITH THAT I THINK MATTERS.

22:50 - YEAH LET ME ASK YOU FINALLY

22:52 - THEN.

22:52 - I PROPOSE THAT THE WHOLE.

22:55 - DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD.

22:58 - WHY DOES IT MAKE ANY

22:59 - DIFFERENCE TO YOUR CLIENT BEGIN

23:01 - IN REAL

23:02 - WORLD TERMS WHETHER THESE

23:03 - CHARGES REMAIN PENDING OR

23:05 - DISMISS HE'S CONFINED ON OTHER

23:07 - CHARGES. HE APPARENTLY IS

23:09 - PRETTY INCOMPETENT AND IN DUE

23:11 - COURSE THESE CHARGES WILL GO

23:12 - AWAY IN ANY EVENT.

23:14 - AN EXCELLENT QUESTION IN MY

23:16 - EXPERIENCE IN STATE PAROLE.

23:17 - WE WORK WITH WELL

23:19 - LEADS ME TO THE BELIEF THAT

23:21 - HAVING IT TO TEHRAN, YOU DOES

23:23 - IMPEDE YOUR ABILITY TO DO THING

23:25 - IN THE PRESS IN A PRISON

23:26 - SENTENCE

23:27 - SET SETTING TO A SORRY HAS THE

23:30 - ABILITY TO QUIT.

23:32 - BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DETAINER

23:33 - ON NEW DEO SEA VIEWS YOU A

23:35 - DIFFERENT MATTER YOU YOU YOU'RE

23:37 - DENIED PRIVILEGES THAT OTHER

23:39 - INMATES ARE TO GET THAT.

23:43 - PAINTER WE

23:44 - CAN HARM. INDIVIDUALS SERVING

23:46 - SET SO

23:47 - HAVING SENTENCE HAVING THIS

23:49 - OPEN CASE IN CENTRE COUNTY.

23:52 - WE CAN. ADVERSELY IMPACT HOW

23:56 - HE'S TREATED AT SCI PHOENIX

23:58 - WORRY.

23:59 - MR. KROENKE TONIGHT. I WANT TO

24:01 - GET BACK TO THE STATUTE BECAUSE

24:03 - I UNDERSTOOD THIS CASE

24:04 - IS ABOUT THE SUPERIOR COURT

24:07 - APPLYING PRECEDENT THAT SAYS

24:09 - THE SECOND SENTENCE OF

24:10 - PARAGRAPH HE DOESN'T COME INTO

24:12 - PLAY.

24:12 - UNLESS THERE'S A RETURN

24:13 - TO CAMPUS. THAT'S HOW I READ

24:16 - THE ISSUE BEFORE US WHETHER

24:17 - THAT STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

24:18 - IS CORRECT. LET'S ASSUME THIS

24:22 - THE 2 CENSUS CAN BE READ IN THE

24:23 - DESTRUCTIVE AND I SENTENCE THAT

24:25 - YOU'RE THAT YOU'RE RELYING ON

24:28 - IN THE TRIAL COURT LIGHT ON

24:29 - SAYS IF THE COURT

24:31 - IS OF THE OPINION THAT BY

24:32 - REASON OF THE PASSAGE

24:33 - OF TIME AND ITS EFFECT UPON THE

24:35 - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IT WOULD

24:36 - BE UNJUST TO RESUME THE

24:38 - PROSECUTION. THE COURT MAY

24:40 - DISMISS THE CHARGE AND ORDERED

24:41 - THE PERSON DISCHARGED

24:43 - RIGHT NOW IT'S INTERESTING TO

24:44 - ME ABOUT THAT PARAGRAPH IS IT

24:45 - DOESN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT

24:47 - PROBABILITY OF RETURNING

24:48 - TO CONFIDENCE WHICH THE

24:50 - LEGISLATURE CLEARLY KNOWS HOW

24:51 - TO SAY BECAUSE THEY SAID IT

24:52 - IN D WHAT IT REALLY DOES TO ME

24:55 - SAY IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A

24:57 - PASSAGE OF TIME.

24:59 - THAT IMPACTS THE ABILITY FOR

25:02 - THE DEFENDANT TO GET A FAIR

25:02 - TRIAL TO GET THE DISMISSAL

25:04 - UNDER THAT LANGUAGE. IF I

25:06 - UNDERSTAND THE RECORD

25:06 - CORRECTLY. THIS CASE WAS

25:08 - DISMISSED 9 MONTHS AFTER THE

25:10 - COMPETENT COMPETENCY

25:11 - DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY THE

25:13 - COURT.

25:20 - HOW IS HOW IS 9 MONTHS,

25:23 - SUFFICIENT PASSAGE

25:24 - OF TIME THAT WOULD TRIGGER A

25:26 - TRIAL COURT'S AUTHORITY UNDER

25:27 - THIS LANGUAGE SUCH THE TRIAL

25:29 - COURT COULD DETERMINE AFTER

25:31 - 9 MONTHS

25:34 - THAT BY REASON THAT PASSAGE IT

25:35 - WOULD BE UNJUST TO RESUME THE

25:36 - PROSECUTION, THE TAX PARCEL IS

25:38 - RELYING ON THE FACT THAT.

25:40 - AND THEN NO EFFORT AT ALL TO

25:42 - RESTORE HIM TO COMPETENCY IN

25:43 - THAT PERIOD AND NO EFFORTS

25:46 - COULD BE STARTED UNTIL AT LEAST

25:48 - 2 YEARS OUT. BUT

25:51 - LET MAYBE 13 YEARS AT THE SCENE

25:54 - TO ME THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE

25:55 - LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE

25:56 - IS IT THE ONLY DETERMINED HERE

25:58 - IS THE PASSAGE

25:58 - OF TIME, NOT THE PAST NOT NOT

26:01 - WHAT TIME THEY PASS IN THE

26:02 - FUTURE. BUT THE PASSAGE OF TIME

26:04 - AT THE TIME THE TRIAL JUDGE

26:05 - ASSESSES THE MOTION TO DISMISS

26:06 - AND HERE THERE WAS ONLY

26:07 - 9 MONTHS AND THE TRIAL COURT

26:09 - WAS KIND OF LOOKING IN THE

26:10 - PROGNOSTICATING IN THE FUTURE.

26:12 - IT MAY VERY WELL BE 2 YEARS

26:14 - DOWN THE ROAD. HE'S RECEIVED

26:16 - NO TREATMENT. HE'S

26:18 - HE'S AND AT THAT POINT TIME

26:20 - WITNESSES HAVE DIED EVIDENCE A

26:21 - STALE ALL THAT

26:22 - OTHER STUFF. BUT I'M HAVING A

26:24 - HARD TIME AND GRAFTING INTO THE

26:27 - SECOND

26:27 - SENTENCE BE THE PROBABILITY TO

26:30 - RETURN TO ATTAIN CAPACITY IN

26:32 - THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE LANGUAGE

26:33 - THAT IS IN D WHICH I THINK IS

26:35 - NECESSARY TO GET WHERE YOU WANT

26:36 - TO GO.

26:38 - OTHER THAN THE

26:40 - PANEL BELOW WE DIDN'T CHALLENGE

26:43 - THAT AS AN ABUSE OF THE COURT'S

26:44 - DISCRETION MAKE

26:45 - THAT CONCLUSION. I THINK ON

26:47 - REVIEW WE CAN DO THAT JUDGE

26:49 - MARSHALL WE HEARD THE EVIDENCE

26:51 - THE OR THE.

26:52 - HE SAW THE DEFENDANT HE HE

26:54 - KNOWS THE FACTS THE CASE HE

26:55 - MADE THAT A DECISION THAT NO

26:57 - ONE IS REALLY QUICKLY WHAT WELL

26:59 - COUNCIL I THINK.

27:01 - TO ADDRESS JUSTICE PROB

27:04 - SINCE CONCERN.

27:05 - THERE WASN'T A DESIGNATION OF

27:08 - THE AMOUNT OF TIME NEEDED TO

27:09 - PASS AND.

27:11 - THAT

27:13 - MY MIND WOULD PUT IT SQUARELY

27:15 - WITHIN THE TRIAL COURT'S

27:16 - DISCRETION

27:17 - TO DECIDE IT AND UNLESS HE

27:19 - ABUSED THAT DISCRETION. YOU

27:21 - KNOW IT WAS A DISCRETIONARY

27:24 - DECISION WAS WITHIN HIS

27:26 - BAILIWICK TO MAKE.

27:28 - ALTHOUGH YOUR KIT YOU DO YOU

27:30 - AGREE WITH THAT RIGHT THAT WAS

27:31 - A SOFTBALL AND I MIGHT WELL

27:34 - AGREE WITH JUSTICE TODD THAT A

27:36 - FAIR READING OF WHAT THE TRIAL

27:38 - COURT

27:38 - DID HERE.

27:39 - WAS HE THREW UP HIS HANDS OUT

27:41 - OF ABSOLUTE FRUSTRATION WITH

27:42 - THE CATCH 22 YEAH

27:44 - UNDER OUR SYSTEM YOU CAN'T GET

27:46 - MENTAL

27:46 - HEALTH ASSISTANCE. COMPETENCY

27:49 - RESTORATION ASSISTANCE SO LONG

27:51 - AS YOUR STATE INMATE.

27:52 - AND YOU CAN'T AVOID THE STATE

27:54 - INMATES ATTA SO LONG AS YOU

27:56 - REMAIN CONFIDENT, AND I THINK

27:58 - THE FACT THAT AFTER.

28:00 - VARIOUS ORDERS AND VARIOUS

28:02 - EFFORTS. THE TRIAL COURT COULD

28:03 - MAKE NO HEADWAY IN GETTING YOUR

28:06 - CLIENT COMPETENCY

28:07 - RESTORATION SERVICES. WELL IT

28:09 - WAS NICE TO MAY SNEAK TO BE

28:12 - SOME DISCRETION BUT I THINK

28:13 - THAT'S WHAT WAS PUSHING HIM

28:15 - WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE

28:18 - IF YOUR CLIENT RECEIVING ANY

28:20 - MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

28:22 - HE'S TERRIFIC SAVING

28:24 - BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

28:28 - WE BELIEVE THAT WAS TESTIMONY

28:29 - AT THE.

28:32 - HEARING ON THE MOTION TO

28:33 - DISMISS THERE WAS TESTIMONY

28:34 - FROM THE DNC THAT HE SEES A

28:36 - PSYCHIATRIST EVERY 30 DAYS.

28:40 - I'M SURE HE'S MEDICATED.

28:43 - MANIFESTATIONS OF THIS MIDDLE

28:45 - OF THE CITY. CAUSE PROBLEMS AND

28:47 - THE JAIL SET SETTING. BUT

28:48 - CLEARLY IS NOT RESEARCH

28:50 - RECEIVING ANY THE THING THAT

28:51 - WOULD RESTORE HIM TO

28:52 - COMPETENCY. ADDRESSING THE

28:54 - SYMPTOMS DOESN'T STAR WANT

28:56 - TO COME.

28:57 - MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN THE

28:58 - WAY HE RECEIVING MENTAL HEALTH

29:01 - TREATMENT. I MEAN DEATHS AND

29:02 - THE RECORD THAT'S ONE

29:04 - WOULD WONDER. WHAT KIND OF

29:07 - MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ARE

29:08 - AVAILABLE TO

29:09 - INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS.

29:12 - AND AND YOU KNOW TO GET BACK TO

29:14 - MY EARLIER POINT ABOUT THE

29:16 - REQUIREMENT THAT ANY

29:17 - DISSEMINATION I MEAN IF WE'RE

29:19 - GOING TO SAY WELL THE REALITY

29:21 - IS

29:21 - IT THAT. WELL THEN MAYBE THE

29:23 - REALITY IS THAT THE PASSAGE OF

29:24 - TIME CAN BE THE DETERMINATIVE

29:26 - FACTOR ALL TIME.

29:31 - DEAL WITH THE PASSAGE OF A

29:33 - THAT CAPS AND

29:34 - IN MY HOME STATE IT DOES TODAY

29:37 - 7 LAYER BUT SOME SECTIONS OF

29:39 - THE DEALS WITH THE REQUIREMENT

29:40 - THAT AN EXAMINATION OF

29:42 - INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN NEED OF

29:44 - MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT WHICH

29:46 - ISN'T HAPPENING.

29:48 - AND THAT DEALS WITH THE STEADY.

29:51 - WELL LIKE THIS DAY DOESN'T

29:52 - MENTION DISMISSED. PRESUMABLY

29:54 - IF THE STATE GOES ON TOO LONG.

29:56 - YOU GO BACK TO BE.

29:59 - IN THE STATE IS LET'S SAY THE

30:00 - STAY IS LIFTED AFTER 7 YEARS IF

30:02 - THE STAY IS LIFTED.

30:05 - IF THE STATE HAS TO BE LIFTED

30:06 - AT 7 RIGHT.

30:08 - THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE CASE IS

30:09 - NOT CONFIDENT.

30:11 - THEN I THINK WHAT DO YOU DO YOU

30:13 - GO TO EAT YOU GO TO THE SECOND

30:15 - SENSE OF THE IN GET THE COURT

30:16 - DISMISSAL BECAUSE OF THE

30:17 - PASSAGE OF TIME IT WOULD BE

30:18 - UNJUST TO TRY THAT PERSON.

30:21 - SO THE COURT COULD LIFT THE

30:22 - STAY WHILE THESE INCOMPETENT

30:24 - CAN BEAT RIGHT.

30:27 - THE CHARGES WOULD BE DISMISSED

30:29 - AT

30:29 - THAT POINT. NOW THIS YES DIED

30:31 - YEARS THE STATUTE ONLY SAYS

30:33 - THAT THAT PARAGRAPH STATION

30:34 - TALKS ABOUT LIFTING THE STATE

30:36 - DOESN'T TALK ABOUT DISMISSING

30:37 - CHARGES DISMISSING CHARGES IN.

30:39 - BUT BUT PRACTICALLY SPEAKING.

30:42 - IF YOU CAN'T BEAT RIGHT.

30:44 - AND THE STAY IS LIFTED. WE

30:46 - CAN'T PROCEED.

30:47 - WELL I I AM SORT OF AGREEING

30:49 - WITH THAT I'M NOT SURE I AGREE

30:51 - WITH THE SUPREME COURT

30:52 - SUPERIOR COURTS. READING THAT

30:55 - THERE MUST BE A RESTORATION OF

30:56 - COMPETENCY BEFORE THE SECOND

30:58 - SENSE OF THE E

30:59 - IS TRIGGERED WHAT I'M SAYING IS

31:01 - HE IS THE ONLY LANGUAGE THAT

31:03 - ADDRESSES DISMISSAL. EVERYTHING

31:05 - ELSE ABOUT STAYS OR DISCHARGE

31:07 - FROM CUSTODY. AND IT SEEMS TO

31:09 - ME IF THE STAY IS LIFTED AFTER

31:11 - A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME YOU

31:12 - HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DEFENSE

31:14 - COUNSEL TO GO INTO THE TRIAL

31:15 - COURT AND SAY.

31:17 - 2 OUT TOO MUCH TIME HAS PASSED

31:18 - EVEN IF WE COULD GET THE PERSON

31:20 - RESTORED TO COMPETENCY TOO MUCH

31:21 - TIME HAS PASSED WITNESSES

31:22 - RECOLLECTIONS ARE

31:24 - ARE FRAYED. BEEN DESTROYED

31:26 - WHATEVER YOU WANT TO ARGUE IT

31:27 - WOULD BE UNJUST TO GO TO TRIAL.

31:29 - AND YES FOR DISMISSAL.

31:32 - WELL WE SHOULD HAVE WAITED TO 7

31:34 - YEAR. I THINK YOU SHOULD

31:36 - HAVE WON. I DON'T KNOW I MEAN I

31:38 - HAVE I'VE MY FINAL THOUGHT ON

31:40 - THIS, BUT I'M JUST TRYING

31:41 - TO SAY THE POINT IS I READ THE

31:42 - STATUTORY LANGUAGE, IT'S ABOUT

31:44 - PASSAGE OF TIME IT'S NOT ABOUT

31:46 - RESTORATION OF COMPETENCY.

31:48 - JUST AS MANY AS A QUESTION AND

31:50 - THEN WE'RE GOING TO HERE FOR

31:51 - THE OTHER SIDE. CERTAINLY UP.

31:53 - MISTER CROWLEY, WHAT WOULD THE

31:56 - RECCOMENDATION BE TO THIS COURT

31:58 - WITH REGARD TO THE DISPOSITION

32:00 - OF THIS APPEAL.

32:02 - WOULD YOU LOOK IS IT

32:04 - NECESSARY TO HAVE A REAM AND TO

32:05 - HAVE EVALUATION OF

32:07 - YOUR CLIENT.

32:08 - WHAT I THINK YOU CAN SAFELY

32:09 - GUARD WAS WRONGLY DECIDED.

32:13 - AND OUR GOAL WAS WRONGLY

32:15 - DECIDED AND OVERTURN IT THAT

32:17 - THAT THIS REMEDY

32:18 - DOES LIE IN FOR A 3 OK ASSUMING

32:21 - THAT'S PART OF YOUR.

32:24 - DISPOSITION. WHAT I'M LOOKING

32:26 - FOR IS AT

32:27 - THIS POINT THERE'S BEEN

32:29 - CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME

32:30 - THAT'S PASSED SINCE YOUR CLIENT

32:32 - APPARENTLY HAS TESTED.

32:34 - FOR HIS COMPETENCY IS THAT

32:36 - NECESSARY AT THIS POINT OR IS

32:37 - ENOUGH TIME GONE BY. SO THAT

32:40 - YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IT'S

32:42 - PREJUDICIAL AT THIS TIME FOR

32:43 - HIM TO FACE A PROSECUTION.

32:48 - TRUE WAS 9 MONTHS BETWEEN THE

32:49 - FILING. THE TERMINATION A

32:52 - COMPETENCY.

32:57 - A YEAR AND A HALF.

32:59 - TO THE INCIDENT AND HE

33:00 - WAS NOT WE'RE CONFIDENT AT

33:02 - THAT TIME BECAUSE HE WAS

33:06 - SUFFERING FROM THIS BIPOLAR

33:08 - DISORDER WITH PSYCHOTIC

33:09 - FEATURES. SO IT'S IT'S BEEN

33:11 - ON IT IT'S BEEN ALMOST 5 YEARS

33:13 - TO DATE.

33:15 - SINCE THE CHART, THE FIRST

33:17 - CHARGES FIGHT IN THIS CASE

33:19 - COUNTS AND IF WE WERE TO TAKE

33:20 - YOUR ARGUMENT WHICH LOGICAL

33:22 - EXTREME. IF WE WERE TO REVERSE

33:25 - THIS CASE. ANYONE KNEW WHO

33:28 - ALLEGES OR IS DIAGNOSED WITH

33:30 - BIPOLAR DISORDER.

33:34 - AND IT IS DEEMED INCOMPETENT

33:36 - WOULD BE SOME EARLY DISCHARGE.

33:40 - BECAUSE THEY'RE IRREDEEMABLE

33:42 - LEE NOT ABLE TO BE RESTORED IS

33:44 - THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT AT THE

33:45 - ARGUMENT IS. AND EVERYBODY

33:47 - AGREES HE WAS INCOMPETENT.

33:50 - I MEAN THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE

33:53 - UNTIL THE MOTION JUST MINUTES.

33:57 - FOR ANOTHER COMPETENCY

33:58 - EVALUATION. THE JUDGE

33:59 - SAID THAT BUT THE QUESTION

34:01 - BECOMES I WAS ABLE TO BE

34:03 - RESTORED TROOPER. I GUESS THE

34:04 - QUESTION IS IF YOU HAVE BIPOLAR

34:06 - AND YOU ARE REQUIRED OR YOU

34:08 - BECOME REGIMENTED WILL TAKE

34:09 - YOUR MEDICATION, YOU'RE

34:10 - BECOMING A PRODUCTIVE CITIZEN

34:12 - AND

34:12 - COMPETENT AND THE QUESTION HERE

34:15 - IS WHAT'S THE BLOCKAGE OF THE

34:18 - CLIENT RECEIVING HIS

34:19 - APPROPRIATE

34:20 - MEDIC MEDICATION TO HAVE HIM

34:22 - RESTORED TO THAT LEVEL OF

34:23 - COMPETENCE. IT WASN'T

34:26 - MEDICATION THAT WITHIN THE

34:28 - RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ALL

34:29 - AGREE TO

34:30 - IT WAS PROGRAMMING TO RESTORE

34:32 - THE COMPETENCY WHICH IS MORE

34:34 - THAN JUST GIVING A HOUND

34:35 - DOG SHOT OR WHATEVER AND IT

34:37 - WASN'T JUST BIPOLAR WITH THIS

34:39 - INDIVIDUAL

34:40 - PSYCHOTIC FEATURES DELUSIONS A

34:42 - GRAND JURY PERSECUTION COMPLEX

34:43 - IS THE REASON PEOPLES.

34:45 - INMATES IT'S ALL TAKEN MINUTES.

34:48 - WE ARE I UNDERSTAND MUST BE A

34:50 - FUN CLIENT TO DEAL WITH THE

34:51 - COUNCIL CAN

34:52 - I JUST EVEN FROM 9 TO 1, 1, FOR

34:55 - TRASH CAN. IS WITH METAL THE

34:57 - SAME IS DISCHARGED.

35:01 - INTERESTING QUESTION.

35:07 - THERE'S PROBABLY A STATION IN

35:09 - THERE.

35:11 - THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY USE.

35:13 - YEAH IT THEY DISMISS THAT

35:15 - CHARGE AND ORDERED THE PERSON

35:16 - DISCHARGE. BUT I JUST THERE TO

35:18 - DIFFERENT.

35:22 - IN ANY WAY WE CAN NOT BE JUST

35:27 - IF THE CHARGES ARE

35:28 - DISMISSED HERE. MAYBE HE'S NOT

35:30 - DISCHARGED AND THE CHARGES BE

35:32 - REINSTATED IF THE TEAM'S

35:34 - CONFIDENCE IN THE PAST A STATUE

35:36 - LIMIT ART STATUE OF LIMITATIONS

35:38 - TO REFI.

35:41 - THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

35:45 - THANK YOU THANK YOU.

36:06 - THANK YOU

36:06 - HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE

36:08 - SUPREME COURT MAY IT PLEASE THE

36:10 - AND IT HAPPENED ON BEHALF OF

36:11 - THE COMMONWEALTH.

36:13 - I AM ASKING YOU TO A FIRM AND

36:15 - THE DECISION OF THE SUPERIOR

36:16 - COURT BELOW WHICH REVERSED THE

36:18 - DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES

36:19 - AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY THE

36:21 - TRIAL COURT.

36:23 - THE CALM OF MAINTAINED THAT THE

36:24 - TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE

36:26 - CHARGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 74

36:29 - 3 E OF THE MENTAL HEALTH

36:30 - PROCEDURES ACT WAS CONTRARY TO

36:32 - BOTH STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND

36:34 - PENNSYLVANIA CASE LAW. THAT

36:36 - EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO

36:37 - SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S

36:39 - ASSUMPTION AND CONCLUSION THAT

36:41 - THE APPELLANT WOULD BE

36:42 - PREJUDICE IF YOU ARE RESTORED

36:43 - TO COMPETENCY AND MADE TO STAND

36:45 - TRIAL AT A LATER DATE.

36:47 - AND THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE

36:48 - ORDERED A COMPETENCY EVALUATION

36:50 - BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN

36:51 - SERVICES RATHER THAN DISMISSING

36:53 - THE CHARGES.

36:55 - FIRST CAUGHT IT WAS CONTRARY

36:57 - TO STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND

36:59 - PENNSYLVANIA CASE LAW. THE

37:01 - TRIAL COURT ERRED

37:02 - WHEN IT

37:03 - INDIVIDUALLY AND SELECTIVELY

37:05 - RELIED ON THE SECOND SENTENCE

37:08 - OF THAT SECTION 743 E

37:11 - FOR GROUNDS FOR TO DISMISSAL OF

37:13 - THE CHARGES. RATHER THAN

37:15 - READING THE SECTION AS A WHOLE

37:17 - THE STATUTE'S PLAIN LANGUAGE

37:19 - PROVIDES THE BEST EVIDENCE OF

37:21 - THE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT AND

37:23 - THE PLAIN LANGUAGE IN THIS CASE

37:25 - INDICATES THAT 743 E

37:28 - IS ASSUMING THAT A PERSON HAS

37:31 - BEEN RESTORED TO COMPETENCY

37:34 - AND THEN CAN RESUME I COULD I

37:35 - ASK YOU COUNSEL AND I

37:38 - I.

37:38 - HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE HEARING

37:39 - YOU MAY BE LIKE THOSE JUDGES

37:41 - 200 YEARS AGO IN THE ONE OF

37:42 - THOSE LIKE MORONS THAT COMES

37:43 - OUT. BUT.

37:50 - THE DISMISSAL OF CHARGES IS NOT

37:52 - AVAILABLE.

37:55 - TO AN INCOMPETENT DEFENDANT.

37:59 - UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES

38:00 - IN E YOU'RE SAYING ARE YOU NOT

38:04 - THE STATUTE HERE DOESN'T

38:06 - PROVIDE FOR DISMISSAL OF THE

38:07 - CHARGES IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE

38:09 - AREN'T YOU.

38:10 - SO THERE'D TO SIT AREAS THAT

38:14 - ARE WRITTEN AND 2 SECTIONS 743

38:16 - AS A WHOLE WHERE THE CASE WOULD

38:18 - HAVE TO BE DISMISSED ONE WOULD

38:20 - BE AN E WHERE SOMEONE WAS

38:21 - RESTORED TO COMPETENCY DOUBLE

38:23 - WE'RE TALKING WE'RE PUTTING

38:24 - THAT ASIDE EVERYBODY AGREES.

38:27 - THIS PERSON IS NOT COMPETENT

38:29 - AND NOT REGAIN INCOMPETENCE.

38:31 - YES, SO IF YOU LOOK

38:35 - TOO SECTION F 743 AFTER

38:38 - THAT TALKS ABOUT THE LENGTH OF

38:39 - THE STAY. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT

38:43 - THIS CASE. IT'S A FELONY OF

38:44 - THE 3RD DEGREE SO THAT IS 7

38:46 - YEARS. SO.

38:49 - THE CASE IS STATED TO PRESERVE

38:51 - HIS RIGHTS BUT THE

38:52 - COMMONWEALTH, CONSTITUTIONALLY

38:54 - WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROSECUTE

38:56 - HIM IF THE STAY HAD TO

38:59 - BE LIFTED BY THE CONSTITUTION I

39:02 - CAN'T PROSECUTE SOMEONE WHO IS

39:03 - THE COP TO IT.

39:04 - SO YOU'RE GONNA MISS MAX OF 7

39:06 - YEARS RIGHT.

39:09 - WE'RE USING HIS

39:09 - MAXIMUM SENTENCE AS THE PAIR

39:12 - MET THE PERIOD OF TIME. DURING

39:14 - WHICH YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED.

39:16 - WE BROUGHT BACK TO COMPETENCY.

39:19 - IT IS WHAT IT WOULD APPEAR TO

39:21 - BE IF YOU LOOK AT 743 AFTER

39:23 - BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT YOU SHALL

39:25 - NOT

39:26 - STAY IT. LONGER THAN

39:28 - THE PERIOD, THE MAXIMUM

39:30 - SENTENCE THAT THEY MAY RECEIVE

39:32 - OR 10 YEARS WHICHEVER IS

39:33 - SHORTER SO 7 YEARS WOULD BE

39:35 - SHORTER.

39:36 - THEN 10 YEARS IN THIS

39:38 - WEALTH. YEAH YOU SHOOT BEFORE

39:40 - THIS COURT IS UNIQUE IN THE

39:41 - SENSE THAT THE INTENT OF

39:43 - THIS STATUTE.

39:44 - IS THAT IF AN INDIVIDUAL

39:46 - ACCUSED OF A CRIME IS DEEMED

39:48 - INCOMPETENT THAT.

39:50 - SHE IS TO

39:52 - REDUCE EVE. JAIL BASED RESTORED

39:56 - TO COMPETENCY.

39:58 - SERVICES IN THIS PARTICULAR

40:00 - SCENARIO.

40:02 - THIS IS NOT A SINGULAR OFFENSE

40:05 - THAT'S BLOCKING.

40:06 - THE RESTORATION. IT'S THE PRIOR

40:09 - CONVICTION.

40:11 - SUCH THAT THE PRIOR CONVICTION

40:13 - IN THE CURRENT PINO

40:14 - STATE INSTITUTIONS DO

40:17 - NOT PERMIT.

40:18 - AS STATE INCARCERATED

40:21 - INDIVIDUAL TO GET THE

40:22 - NECESSARY.

40:24 - RESTORATION AT EITHER

40:26 - NORTH COUNTERPARTS SO WHAT ARE

40:29 - WE TO DO WHAT IS THAT JUDGE TO

40:31 - DO.

40:31 - WHEN THIS SYSTEM,

40:33 - NOT WITHIN THE READING OF THE

40:35 - STATUTE OR ANY INTERPRETATION

40:37 - OF THE STATUTE IS BLOCKING.

40:40 - AN

40:40 - INDIVIDUAL THAT THE

40:41 - COMMONWEALTH AND THE DEFENSE

40:43 - HAVE CONCEDED WOULD BE

40:45 - INCOMPETENT WOULD BE.

40:48 - MOST EU MAIN THING NOT TO BE

40:50 - WITHDRAWAL

40:50 - THESE CHARGES WHICH EMANATE

40:52 - FROM THE VERY PSYCHIATRIC

40:54 - DISORDER.

40:58 - HE THREW URINE AT

40:59 - A GUARD AND SPED UP

41:01 - ON ONE WHICH IS CLEARLY

41:03 - INDICATIVE OF HIS.

41:05 - DETERIORATING MENTAL HEALTH.

41:08 - SO HOW ARE HOW WAS THE

41:10 - TRIAL JUDGE TO HANDLE THIS

41:12 - SCENARIO. THAT WAS NOT WITHIN

41:14 - THE STATUTE AND NOT WITHIN HIS

41:17 - OR HER CONTROL. WHAT'S

41:18 - YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

41:19 - SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IN

41:20 - THE WITNESSES THAT I DID AT THE

41:22 - HEARING FOR THE MOTION TO

41:23 - DISMISS WE HAVE TO WORK WITHIN

41:25 - THE CONFINES OF WHAT OUR WE'RE

41:27 - ABLE TO SO MISS PENN CHAR'S

41:30 - TESTIFIED TO WHO WORKS FOR THE

41:31 - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

41:33 - AND WHAT DOCTOR RIGHT

41:35 - TESTIFIED TO WHO WORKS FOR THE

41:37 - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS THEY

41:39 - WORK TOGETHER IN SITUATIONS

41:40 - SUCH

41:40 - AS THESE. THE DEPARTMENT OF

41:42 - CORRECTIONS WILL PROVIDE MENTAL

41:44 - HEALTH TREATMENT FOR THE

41:45 - INDIVIDUAL. AND THE DEPARTMENT

41:47 - OF HUMAN SERVICES WILL

41:48 - SEND AN EVALUATOR IN IT TO US

41:51 - REVIEW THAT INDIVIDUAL SPEAK

41:53 - WITH THEM AND SEE IF THEY'RE

41:54 - ABLE. TOO BIG REGAIN COMPETENCY

41:58 - AT THAT POINT AND WHAT DOCTOR

42:00 - WRIGHT DID TESTIFY TO IS THAT

42:03 - THE DEO STEVE THEY CAN ADJUST

42:05 - AND INMATES TREATMENT THAT

42:07 - THEY'RE RECEIVING WITHIN THE

42:08 - FACILITY. THEY CAN ADJUST THAT

42:11 - SHOULD THEY BE FOUND TO BE IN

42:12 - CONFIDENT AND SHE ALSO

42:14 - TESTIFIED THAT PART OF THEIR

42:16 - MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT WITH

42:17 - AND THE D O C IS MEANT TO

42:19 - STABILIZE AN INDIVIDUAL.

42:21 - SO IT GOES TO SHOW THAT MIGHT

42:23 - STOP YOU THAT YOU'RE GETTING

42:25 - INTO A FACT-BASED ARGUMENT

42:26 - WHICH IS NOT THIS COURT'S.

42:28 - BAILEY WORK WHAT WE'RE

42:29 - INTERESTED IS THE

42:30 - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. FOR

42:34 - WHATEVER

42:35 - IS E SO IF YOU COULD DIRECT

42:37 - YOURSELF TO THAT, BUT LET ME

42:39 - SEE IF I CAN HELP YOU ALONG

42:40 - THERE. YOU CAN SEE THE STATUE

42:43 - AMBIGUOUS.

42:44 - NO I DON'T THINK 74 THREES

42:46 - AND I DON'T I DON'T KNOW HOW

42:47 - YOU CAN SAY THAT WE'RE OFFICE

42:49 - SCRATCHING OUR HEADS AS TO

42:51 - WHETHER THESE ARE.

42:52 - THE FIRST SENTENCE SECOND

42:54 - SENTENCE.

42:56 - WHICH IS THE WAY ARE OPPOSING

42:57 - COUNSEL WOULD READ IT WHETHER

42:59 - IT'S ONE CONTINUE.

43:01 - AND OF COURSE IT'S IT THERE'S

43:02 - AN OR IN ITS TITLE. HOW CAN YOU

43:05 - SAY THAT IT'S CLEAR.

43:07 - I GUESS YOU CAN STICK YOUR GUYS

43:08 - BUT I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE

43:10 - LOADED.

43:12 - WHEN YOU ARE READ A STATUE

43:14 - YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO GIVE EFFECT

43:16 - TO ALL OF ITS PIECES AND YOU'RE

43:19 - SUPPOSED TO READ THEM TOGETHER.

43:21 - SO THERE ARE ONLY 2 SENTENCES

43:23 - IN THIS

43:24 - ONE SECTION AND BOTH SENTENCES

43:27 - SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATE

43:28 - RESUMPTION OF PROCEEDINGS.

43:30 - THEY BOTH USE THE WORD RESUME

43:32 - EVEN THE SECOND SENTENCE IS

43:33 - TALKING ABOUT RESUMING.

43:35 - IT IS STATE AND THERE'S MENTAL

43:37 - HEALTH

43:37 - PROCEDURES ACT THE CASE IS

43:39 - STAYED SO CLEARLY IT'S

43:41 - CONTEMPLATING.

43:43 - BEING RESUMED THE WAY THAT IS

43:44 - RESUMED AS IF THAT PERSON

43:46 - REGAINS COMPETENCY. BUT IF WHAT

43:48 - IF.

43:49 - READING THAT READING THIS

43:51 - PROVISION THAT YOU SENSE OF

43:52 - THIS PROVISION.

43:58 - IF THE COMPETENCE IS REGAIN THE

44:00 - PROCEEDING SHALL

44:00 - BE RESUMED. THEN IF THE COURT

44:03 - IS OF THE OPINION BY THE REASON

44:05 - THE PASSAGE OF TIME IT'S

44:06 - ENTERED SEVERAL BE UNJUST TO

44:07 - RESUME. THE COURT

44:09 - MAY DISMISS. SO.

44:13 - WHY WOULD IT BE UNJUST.

44:18 - OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE HAS

44:20 - NOT REGAINED HIS COMPETENCE.

44:23 - IF YOU REGAIN HIS COMPETENCE

44:24 - PRESUMABLY IT'S NOT AN JUSTIN

44:26 - GO FORWARD.

44:28 - SO THIS THIS IS

44:31 - THE

44:32 - WAY THE 743 AS A WHOLE

44:34 - CAN IT HAS CONSTRUCTED ALLOWS

44:38 - THE DEFENDANT TO ASSERT THAT

44:41 - THERE HAS BEEN SOME PREJUDICE.

44:42 - WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT

44:44 - ON EVIDENCE ABOUT

44:46 - HOW THE PASSAGE OF TIME HAS

44:48 - IMPACTED YOUR ABILITY TO.

44:51 - PRESENTED DEFENSE WHETHER IT BE

44:53 - IMPACT ON YOUR MEMORY WHETHER

44:55 - IT BE SPOILING ATION OF

44:56 - EVIDENCE LOSS OF WITNESS NOT A

44:58 - STREAM READING IS IT

45:00 - MORE LOGICAL.

45:02 - TO READ THIS AND REALIZE THE

45:04 - LEGISLATURE WAS SAYING LOOK IF

45:06 - EVERYBODY AGREES. THIS

45:07 - GUY'S NOT YOU KNOW COMING BACK

45:09 - INTO THE REALM OF SANITY.

45:12 - THE COURT MAY DISMISS IT

45:14 - DOESN'T NOT THE COURT MUST

45:15 - DISMISS THE COURT MAY. AND THIS

45:17 - COURT AND ITS DISCRETION.

45:20 - WEIGH THE EVIDENCE IN AND DID

45:22 - DISMISS IT ISN'T THAT THE MORE

45:24 - LOGICAL READING OF WHAT THE

45:25 - LEGISLATURE DID HERE,

45:27 - WE'LL HAVE.

45:28 - THE LEGISLATURE WANTED THE

45:30 - TRIAL COURT TO HAVE THE ABILITY

45:32 - TO HAVE THE DISCRETION TO

45:33 - UNILATERALLY DISMISS A CASE IT

45:36 - WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.

45:38 - IT DOES BUT THE OTHER

45:38 - ARGUMENT IS IT DID SAY THAT

45:40 - YEAH IT DOES SAY THAT COULD

45:41 - MAKE WHICH BRINGS ME BACK AND

45:43 - THEY KEEP HARPING ON

45:44 - THIS POINT BUT THIS ENTIRE

45:46 - STAFF HE IS BASED ON AN

45:48 - UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERY 90

45:50 - DAYS, THE TRIAL JUDGE IS GOING

45:51 - TO BE TOLD HOW THIS GUY DOING.

45:54 - YES

45:54 - AND SO IT WOULD BE A 3RD LET'S

45:57 - ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT

45:58 - THAT THE STATUTE WORKS IN THE

46:00 - MANNER IN WHICH THE LEGISLATURE

46:01 - INTENDED THAT EVERY

46:03 - 90 DAYS FOR 2 YEARS A TRIAL

46:06 - JUDGE GETS REPORTED THAT SAYS

46:08 - HE'S NEVER GOING TO

46:10 - BE COMPETENT. HE IS NEVER GOING

46:12 - TO BE CONFIDENT HE'S NEVER

46:14 - GOING TO BE COMPETENT.

46:15 - THE JUDGE CERTAINLY CAN SUE US

46:17 - POINT THEY SAY I'M MISSING THE

46:19 - CHARGES.

46:21 - I MEAN IT AND AND YOU

46:23 - KNOW WE'RE CERTAIN OF ISOLATING

46:25 - THIS STATUE TO THESE 2

46:26 - SENTENCES WITHOUT IN MY VIEW,

46:29 - LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT

46:31 - IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN HERE.

46:33 - SO IN THAT

46:34 - THESE 90 DAY ASSESSMENTS DID

46:36 - NOT TAKE PLACE WHY DIDN'T HE

46:38 - COMMONWEALTH ASKED FOR AN

46:39 - ASSESSMENT OR DO YOU AGREE HE'S

46:42 - NEVER GOING TO REGAIN

46:43 - COMPETENCY.

46:44 - I DON'T AGREE THAT HE'S NEVER

46:46 - GOING TO REGAIN COMPETENCY

46:47 - THERE WAS NEVER EVIDENCE

46:49 - PRESENTED TO SAY THAT DOCTORS

46:50 - CAN TELL IS REPORT DIDN'T SAY

46:52 - THAT WHY DIDN'T HE ASK WE CAN

46:54 - MAKE IT I DID ASK FOR

46:55 - EXAMINATION.

46:58 - AND THAT WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE

47:00 - IT WOULD GET.

47:01 - YOU ASKED FOR A REEXAMINATION

47:03 - AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE

47:04 - MOTION TO DISMISS WAS FILED IS

47:07 - THAT ACCURATE. YES, I

47:08 - DID THAT.

47:09 - WELL LET ME ASK YOU BEFORE WE

47:10 - CONCLUDE REALLY QUICK NOT ONLY.

47:13 - WE SPENT WE DO I THINK IT'S IN

47:15 - THAT AND THE NEW STATUTE THAT

47:17 - DOESN'T MEAN YOU

47:17 - DON'T PREVAIL. I ALSO THINK

47:19 - THERE'S NO CASE LAW SUPPORTING

47:20 - YOU IN IN HAYS OR.

47:24 - THE COURT AND SUPERIOR COURT

47:25 - DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENDANT

47:26 - WAS COMPETENT.

47:28 - THEREFORE IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GO

47:30 - TO THE TO 7 O 4 E

47:32 - WE DECIDED WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING

47:34 - SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR NOT IF

47:36 - THE DEFENDANT REMAINS

47:37 - INCOMPETENT. NEVERTHELESS IT

47:39 - DID THAT BUT THAT WAS PURE

47:40 - DICTATE THAT IN THE WHICH WAS

47:42 - DECIDED SOME MONTHS

47:43 - LATER APPARENTLY. THE COURT

47:46 - SAID WERE CONSTRAINED BY A HAZE

47:49 - OR TO RULE THIS WAY AND AGAIN

47:52 - RESPECTFULLY MCARDLE

47:53 - WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN

47:55 - THE SPIRIT COURT WAS NOT

47:56 - OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE PURE

47:58 - DICK TO PACER NOT THE TAKE

48:00 - ISSUE WITH THAT ANALYSIS.

48:07 - WELL

48:09 - WE DECIDED THAT

48:10 - 743 E DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE

48:14 - THEY READ THAT SECTION AS THE

48:16 - DEFENDANT HAVING TOO REGAIN

48:18 - COMPETENCE FIRST.

48:20 - AND THEY THEY

48:22 - THEMSELVES FOUND THAT THERE WAS

48:23 - NO CASE LAW OR STATUTE THAT

48:25 - ALLOWED FOR DISMISSAL WHETHER

48:26 - DNA IS COPIED YOU READ THAT

48:28 - PART OF IT I'M SURE YOU'VE READ

48:29 - IT DID NOT RELY ON TASER.

48:32 - IT DID DISCUSS THESE ARE YES

48:34 - AND IN A NEW GREEN HAZE IT WAS

48:36 - PURE GET THERE.

48:37 - IT WAS DICK TO YES AND LET ME

48:39 - ASK YOU IT HAS COURTS GENERALLY

48:42 - DON'T DO USELESS ACTS.

48:45 - AND IN THE MCARDLE OPINION THE

48:48 - SUPERIOR COURT SAID THAT WHILE

48:49 - WE CAN SEE THE

48:51 - POINTLESS THIS REVERSING THE

48:53 - TRIAL COURT REINSTATING CHARGES

48:55 - FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT WILL

48:56 - MOST LIKELY NEVER STAND TRIAL

48:58 - WE'RE CONSTRAINED TO DO SO SAY

49:01 - HAYES ARE ABSENT ANY STATUTORY

49:04 - AUTHORITY FOR DISMISSAL.

49:07 - WELL WHAT WOULD YOUR THOUGHTS

49:08 - ABOUT ACCORD BEING CONSTRAINED

49:10 - TO WITH WITH IT IT. CONCEDES

49:13 - IS A THE POINT IS THAT.

49:17 - WELL NOW WE GO TO THEIR

49:18 - PREROGATIVE OF THE LEGISLATURE

49:20 - AND THE WAY THAT THEY SHOULD

49:21 - PERHAPS COULD THIS STATUTE BE

49:25 - PUTS

49:26 - A STAY. BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO

49:28 - FILE CERTAIN MOTIONS WHERE YOUR

49:30 - CLIENT IS

49:31 - NOT REQUIRED.

49:32 - SECTION GROUP GIVES YOU THE

49:35 - RIGHT TO COUNSEL THROUGHOUT IT

49:39 - SAYS THAT YOU SHALL DO

49:40 - THOSE EVALUATIONS. THEN YOU

49:42 - HAVE SECTION D WAS CHART WHICH

49:45 - ADDRESSES.

49:47 - DISCHARGE FROM DETENTION SHOULD

49:49 - THERE BE A PROBLEM WITH NOT

49:52 - BEING ABLE TO

49:52 - BE RESTORED AND A COMPETENCY AN

49:55 - INTERESTING SORT OF LIMIT OF

49:56 - INTERESTINGLY INDY.

49:58 - YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT

50:00 - RESTORATION TO COMPETENCY.

50:02 - AND ONE WONDERS WHETHER THE

50:03 - GENERAL ASSEMBLY IF THEY REALLY

50:05 - WANTED TO GIVE THE TRIAL COURT

50:06 - AUTHORITY TO DISMISS WHEN

50:08 - THERE'S A LACK OF PROBABILITY

50:09 - OF RESTORATION TO COMPETENCY.

50:11 - THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE

50:12 - DISMISSAL LANGUAGE AND E

50:14 - IN ADDITION TO THE DISCHARGE

50:15 - LANGUAGE THAT THEY PUT IN INDY

50:17 - YESTERDAY HAVE THE ABILITY

50:19 - TO IT.

50:20 - SPECIFIC TO SPECIFY THAT YOU

50:22 - COULD DISMISS UNDER THOSE

50:23 - CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THEY DID

50:25 - NOT.

50:29 - THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOU

50:30 - BAKING ONE AD. I THINK WE

50:32 - UNDERSTAND

50:32 - THE CASE.

50:33 - KNOW YOUR HONORS I WILL STAND

50:34 - ON MY BRIEF OR ANY OTHER

50:35 - REMAINING ISSUES.

50:37 - THANK YOU TO BOTH BOTH

50:38 - COUNCIL.

50:41 - THE SECOND CASE YOU'RE

50:42 - GOING TO HEAR IS CALLED

50:43 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

50:45 - VERSUS MICHAEL JONES IT'S

50:46 - ANOTHER CRIMINAL CASE AND THIS

50:48 - APPEAL.

50:49 - IT INVOLVES THE DEFENDANT'S

50:51 - RIGHT. UNDER THE CONFRONTATION

50:53 - CLAUSE OF THE 6TH AMENDMENT OF

50:55 - THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

50:57 - TO CONFRONT WITNESSES AND

51:00 - EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.

51:02 - THIS PROVISION OF THE

51:03 - CONSTITUTION WAS APPLIED IN A

51:05 - NOTABLE UNITED STATES SUPREME

51:07 - COURT CASE CALLED BRUTON ITS PR

51:10 - AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT

51:11 - THAT AND WHAT THE CONFRONTATION

51:14 - CLAUSE DOES IS ENSURE THAT A

51:16 - DEFENDANT CAN CHALLENGE

51:18 - EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES

51:19 - AGAINST HIM. THE RELEVANT FACTS

51:21 - ARE THAT ON A PARTICULAR DAY

51:23 - BACK IN 2016 AT 3.30 IN THE

51:25 - MORNING. THE DEFENDANT MISTER

51:27 - JONES AND HIS FRIEND

51:28 - MISTER WILSON SHOT A CAB DRIVER

51:31 - WHO SURVIVED. JONES AND WILSON

51:34 - WERE CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED

51:36 - MURDER AND

51:36 - OTHER CRIMES. AFTER THEIR

51:39 - ARREST WILSON GAVE

51:40 - A STATEMENT IN WHICH HE

51:42 - IMPLICATED BOTH JONES AND

51:44 - WILSON.

51:45 - THE CASE THEN MOVE

51:47 - FORWARD TO A TRIAL AT WHICH

51:49 - BOTH JONES AND WILSON WERE

51:51 - TRIED TOGETHER. THAT'S CALLED

51:52 - THE CONSOLIDATED TRIAL. WILSON

51:55 - DID

51:56 - NOT TESTIFY. BUT A DETECTIVE

51:58 - READ THE STATEMENT HE GAVE THAT

52:00 - ALLEGEDLY IN COAL IMPLICATED

52:02 - BOTH HIM MISTER JONES.

52:06 - BECAUSE WILSON DID

52:08 - NOT TESTIFY. JONES COULD NOT

52:11 - CONFRONT THIS STATEMENT TO THE

52:13 - EXTENT IT WAS OFFERED AGAINST

52:14 - JONES TO PROTECT JONES

52:17 - CONFRONTATION CLAUSE RIGHT,

52:19 - THE TRIAL COURT REPLACED JONES

52:21 - NAME IN THIS STATEMENT WITH

52:23 - QUOTE MY FRIEND. SO THE

52:24 - STATEMENT WHEN IT REFERRED TO

52:26 - JONES WAS READ TO JUST REFER TO

52:28 - MY FRIEND.

52:30 - THE COURT ALSO INSTRUCTED THE

52:31 - JURY THAT THE STATEMENT COULD

52:33 - BE USED TO DETERMINE ONLY

52:34 - WILSON'S GUILT AND NOT JONES

52:36 - KILLED. JONES WAS CONVICTED AND

52:39 - HE

52:39 - APPEALED ARGUING THAT THE

52:41 - ADMISSION OF SOME STATEMENT

52:44 - VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION

52:45 - CLAUSE BECAUSE ALTHOUGH JONES

52:48 - NAME WAS REPLACED WITH

52:49 - MY FRIEND. OTHER EVIDENCE IN

52:51 - THE CASE A STAB LISH THAT JONES

52:54 - AND WILSON WERE FRIENDS WHO

52:55 - WORK TOGETHER. THE SUPERIOR

52:57 - COURT AFFIRMED JONES

52:59 - CONVICTION.

53:01 - AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOW

53:04 - ALLOWED AN APPEAL TO DETERMINE

53:05 - WHETHER THE INTRODUCTION OF

53:07 - JOAN

53:08 - STATEMENT VIOLATED.

53:10 - INSTRUCTIONAL WILSON STATEMENT

53:11 - VIOLATED JONES CONFRONTATION

53:13 - CLAUSE RIGHT UNUSUALLY IN THIS

53:16 - CASE, THE COMMONWEALTH, THE

53:17 - PROSECUTOR AGREES THAT THE

53:19 - ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT

53:21 - VIOLATED JONES. A CONFRONTATION

53:24 - CLAUSE RIGHT

53:25 - BUT THE COMMONWEALTH ARGUES

53:26 - THAT A NEW TRIAL IS NOT

53:28 - REQUIRED BECAUSE AMPLE OTHER

53:30 - EVIDENCE IDENTIFIED JONES AS

53:32 - ONE OF

53:33 - THE SHOOTERS THE DEFENDER

53:35 - ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA

53:36 - WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE PUBLIC

53:38 - DEFENDER IN

53:38 - PHILADELPHIA COUNTY HAS FALLEN

53:41 - AND A KISS BRIEF

53:42 - FOR JONES ARGUING THAT THE

53:44 - REPLACEMENT OF HIS NAME WITH MY

53:46 - FRIEND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO

53:48 - PROTECT HIS CONFRONTATION

53:50 - CLAUSE RIGHT.

53:51 - THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT

53:53 - ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION. HAS

53:55 - FILED AN AMICUS

53:56 - CURIAE BRIEF AND BY THE WAY

53:58 - AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS ARE JUST

54:00 - FRIEND OF THE

54:00 - COURT BRIEFS. THEY'RE FILED BY

54:03 - ENTITIES THAT HAVE AN INTEREST

54:04 - IN THE CASE BUT ARE NOT

54:05 - PARTIES. SO THE COURT ALLOW

54:07 - SUCH ENTITIES TO FILE BRIEFS

54:09 - JUST EXPLAINING THEIR POSITION

54:11 - EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT

54:12 - DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE CASE.

54:14 - SO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

54:15 - ASSOCIATION HAS FILED AN AMICUS

54:17 - CURIAE BRIEF ARGUING

54:19 - THAT THE MISSION OF WILSON

54:20 - STATEMENT WAS PROPER

54:22 - AND THAT IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR

54:24 - EVEN

54:24 - IF AIR BECAUSE AMPLE OTHER

54:26 - EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT JONES WAS

54:29 - GUILTY. NOW LET'S GO TO THE

54:30 - COURTROOM TO HEAR THE ARGUMENT.

54:33 - GOOD MORNING. WE GRANT THAT

54:34 - ALLOWED TO THE APPEAL IN THIS

54:35 - MATTER.

54:36 - TO EXAMINE THE

54:38 - MANNER IN WHICH THE SUPERIOR

54:39 - COURT APPLIED THE U.S. SUPREME

54:41 - COURT'S CASE OF BREWTON VERSUS

54:43 - UNITED STATES

54:44 - WHICH HELD THAT THE ADMISSION

54:46 - OF NON TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANTS

54:48 - CONFESSION THAT IMPLICATED.

54:50 - WHAT THE DEFENDANT AT A JOINT

54:52 - TRIAL VIOLATED THAT DEFENDANT'S

54:54 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO

54:55 - CONFRONT WITNESSES, EVEN THOUGH

54:57 - THE TRIAL COURT DID ISSUE A

54:59 - CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION THAT THE

55:01 - STATEMENT SHOULD ONLY BE YEARS

55:02 - AGAINST THE CO DEFENDANT.

55:06 - BECAUSE THE PHILADELPHIA

55:08 - DISTRICT

55:09 - ATTORNEYS OFFICE AGREED THAT

55:12 - THERE WAS A BRUTAL VIOLATION

55:13 - PRECLUDING US FOR ADVOCACY ON

55:16 - BOTH SIDES OF THE GROUP

55:17 - IN QUESTION. WE TOOK THE VERY

55:19 - UNUSUAL STEP OF AMICUS

55:22 - TO ARGUE. ON BEHALF OF THE

55:24 - COMMONWEALTH AND THEN WE

55:25 - ALLOWED OF MIKA'S

55:27 - FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLELY AS AN

55:29 - EXERCISE OF PARITY SO WE WERE

55:31 - IN FAVOR ONE OVER THE OTHER.

55:32 - I SAY THAT BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO

55:34 - CAUTION ALL OF YOU

55:38 - I'M GOING

55:38 - TO BE POLITELY INSISTENT THAT

55:41 - YOU DON'T GANG UP THE DON'T

55:43 - REPEAT ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE

55:45 - ALREADY BEEN MADE AND THE ONLY

55:47 - ADD SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT

55:49 - BEEN MADE BECAUSE WE WANT WE

55:50 - DON'T WANT TO END OUR CAREERS

55:52 - ON THIS CASE.

55:54 - WITH THAT MISTER CHISHOLM.

55:56 - MAY PLEASE THE COURT MORNING

55:58 - ARRIVES.

56:00 - I'LL BE ARGUING WHEN BEHALF

56:02 - OF THE BASICALLY WHAT YOU JUST

56:04 - STATED YOUR HONOR THAT THE

56:05 - TRIAL COURT AND THE SUPERIOR

56:08 - COURT IN ALLOWING A NON

56:10 - TESTIFYING CO DEFENDANTS

56:11 - CONFESSION TO BE INTRODUCED BY

56:14 - THE PROSECUTOR WHERE THE

56:15 - CONFESSION EXPLICITLY AND

56:17 - UNAMBIGUOUSLY IMPLICATED THE

56:19 - APPELLANT AS A PARTICIPANT IN

56:21 - THE ROBBERY AND

56:21 - A SHOOTING. AND LATELY LINK

56:24 - PALIN AS A PARTICIPANT IN

56:26 - THE SHOOTING ALL IN VIOLATION

56:29 - PELLETS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT.

56:31 - THE CONFRONTATION PURSUANT TO

56:33 - PROVE THE UNITED STATES.

56:35 - AND PENNSYLVANIA ARTICLE ONE

56:37 - SECTION 9 CONSTITUTION RIGHT

56:39 - TO CONFRONTATION. THE AMICUS

56:43 - DEFENDER ASSOCIATION WE'LL BE

56:45 - PRESENTING AN ARGUMENT THAT

56:47 - THE REDACTION OVEN ON

56:48 - TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANT

56:50 - STATEMENT WITH A NEUTRAL

56:52 - PRONOUN IS NOT ALWAYS

56:54 - SUFFICIENT UNDER THE 6TH

56:55 - AMENDMENT AND COURTS MUST APPLY

56:58 - THE BROADER APPROACH AS

57:00 - REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES

57:02 - SUPREME COURT WITH I THINK

57:06 - THAT.

57:08 - THERE IS A CONCESSION WITHIN

57:10 - THE COMMONWEALTH'S BRIEF THAT

57:11 - THERE WAS A PROVEN ISSUE ABREU

57:13 - VIOLATION AND IN THIS CASE.

57:16 - WITH WHAT WE HAD WAS

57:19 - FACIAL INCRIMINATION FACIAL

57:21 - IMPLICATION. AND LATE LINKAGE.

57:26 - BASICALLY GOES TO THE SEQUENCE

57:28 - OF EVENTS IN THIS CASE. YOU HAD

57:30 - A. WITNESS

57:33 - MICHAEL HOUSTON WHO WAS THE

57:35 - OWNER OF JACK'S FIREHOUSE WHO

57:38 - EMPLOYED BOTH MICHAEL JONES

57:40 - THE TALENT AND CONFESSOR SAYING

57:44 - WILSON.

57:46 - MR. HOUSTON TESTIFIED THAT HE

57:49 - KNEW BOTH GENTLEMEN AS.

57:51 - FRIENDS AND CO EMPLOYEES AND

57:55 - THEN RIGHT AFTER THAT

57:57 - THERE WAS A PURPOSEFUL

57:58 - PLACEMENT BY THE DA'S OFFICE TO

58:01 - HAVE A DETECTIVE THE SIGN

58:03 - DETECTIVE IN THIS CASE, TESTIFY

58:06 - THAT THE CONFESS ERS

58:08 - A STATEMENT BASICALLY FACIALLY.

58:13 - IMPLICATED.

58:15 - WERE BLATANTLY LINKED. MICHAEL

58:17 - JONES TO THE.

58:19 - CONFESSION BY HAVING DETECTIVE

58:21 - READ IN THE CONFESSION

58:23 - THAT.

58:25 - MICHAEL JONES. MY FRIEND AT

58:28 - JACK'S FIREHOUSE WAS THE

58:30 - SHOOTER. SO WITH THAT. WE THINK

58:32 - THAT WE'VE FOUND A

58:34 - BRUTAL VIOLATION WITH ALL 3 OF

58:36 - THE FEDERAL LAW PRECEDENCE IN

58:38 - THIS CASE AND YOUR YOUR

58:40 - ARGUMENT IS IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A

58:42 - PROVEN VIOLATION BECAUSE.

58:44 - THERE WAS

58:45 - NO OTHER PERSON IN THIS TRIAL

58:48 - WHO COULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED

58:49 - AS MY FRIEND

58:51 - AND PARTICULARLY NO ONE WHO

58:52 - COULD HAVE BEEN

58:53 - IDENTIFIED AS MY FRIEND FROM

58:55 - THE FIREHOUSE BECAUSE THIS WAS

58:57 - HIS FRIEND WHO WORKED WITH HIM

58:59 - AT THE FIREHOUSE YES, YOUR

59:01 - HONOR.

59:03 - AGAIN WE HAD

59:05 - THE COMMONWEALTH'S

59:06 - A BRIEF FROM THE DISTRICT

59:09 - ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS CONCEDING.

59:11 - THE PROVEN ISSUE.

59:13 - THE AMICUS IT'S BASICALLY

59:16 - RELYING ON TRAVER YS.

59:23 - BASICALLY SAYS THAT.

59:27 - CRAVER'S

59:27 - HE CRIES A CONTEXTUAL

59:30 - IMPLICATION AND LINKAGE

59:32 - HOWEVER, THIS CLEAR LANGUAGE IN

59:34 - IN TRADERS

59:38 - IF THERE IS A BLATANT.

59:41 - INCRIMINATION BUT THAT IS IF

59:44 - OUT REIVERS SO THIS CASE EVEN.

59:49 - IT'S IT PRESENTS THE THE

59:51 - BLATANT LINKAGE THE FACIAL

59:53 - INCRIMINATION THE IMPLICATION

59:55 - THAT EVEN TO CRY BY TRADERS SO.

59:59 - 110 YOU KNOW.

01:00 - 04.079 ALL THE CASE SEEMS TO A FALL

01:00 - 06.569 INCOMPLETE LINE THAT THERE WAS

01:00 - 08.820 A BRUTE IN VIOLATION. NOW.

01:00 - 10.890 BOTH.

01:00 - 13.440 THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

01:00 - 15.739 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND THE

01:00 - 18.939 AMICUS. OTHER SIDE OF

01:00 - 20.509 THE AMICUS WE'RE ARGUING

01:00 - 23.940 HARMLESS ERROR. AND.

01:00 - 25.410 WITH

01:00 - 27.499 HARMLESS ERROR THAT'S A BIRD AT

01:00 - 28.970 THE COMMONWEALTH HAS TO CARRY.

01:00 - 30.530 BEYOND A

01:00 - 33.580 REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IN FROM.

01:00 - 37.670 OBJECTIONABLE. EVIDENCE.

01:00 - 40.000 WE DIDN'T.

01:00 - 43.140 CAUSE THE.

01:00 - 46.239 THE ERROR THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY

01:00 - 49.719 FOR ALL RIGHT. IN THIS CASE IF

01:00 - 50.720 YOU.

01:00 - 55.540 IF YOU SUBTRACT THE CONFESSION.

01:00 - 57.070 ALL YOU

01:00 - 00.309 HAVE IS THE COMPLAINT MISTER

01:01 - 03.509 DE STUNS. TESTIMONY IS

01:01 - 05.099 TO STATEMENT. HIS EVIDENCE

01:01 - 05.930 REGARDING WHAT HAPPENED

01:01 - 07.949 THAT NIGHT AND OUT EXCEPT I'D

01:01 - 09.539 ASK YOU TO ACCEPT THAT WAS TO

01:01 - 11.029 CHOOSE AND THAT'S NOT SO YOU

01:01 - 13.009 HAD. MR. HOUSTON WHO OWNED

01:01 - 15.510 JACK'S RESTAURANT, WE LIKE THE

01:01 - 16.710 YOUR CLIENT

01:01 - 20.029 AS THE A PERSON IN THE SEPT THE

01:01 - 22.709 PICTURE. THE COMMITTEE ACT YOU

01:01 - 24.869 HAVE THE VICTIM WHO IDENTIFIED

01:01 - 27.089 HIM AND YOU HAVE HIS DNA IN

01:01 - 29.279 THE CAB WHERE THE WHERE THE

01:01 - 31.229 CRIME OCCURRED RESPECTFULLY

01:01 - 33.339 THAT IS CORRECT. BUT THE DNA

01:01 - 35.469 ONLY PUTS HIM IN DEKALB THE DNA

01:01 - 36.589 DOESN'T TELL US WHAT HAPPENED

01:01 - 39.129 INSIDE OF THE CAT AND SO SO YOU

01:01 - 41.919 WOULD SAY. I'M SORRY I

01:01 - 43.050 INTERRUPTED YOU, BUT

01:01 - 45.269 YES HE WAS IN THAT CAB, HE WAS

01:01 - 46.669 WITH THE OTHER CO-DEFENDANT,

01:01 - 48.159 THERE WAS A CRIME BUT WE DON'T

01:01 - 49.160 KNOW IF YOU COMMITTED IT

01:01 - 51.329 AND WHAT HAPPENED IS WHEN WE

01:01 - 53.279 LOOK AT THE ABSENCE OF ANY

01:01 - 55.499 COOPERATING EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT

01:01 - 57.879 THE CAB DRIVER SAID THEN YOU

01:01 - 59.319 KNOW WE HAVE THE CAB DRIVER

01:01 - 00.599 SAYING HE WAS SHOT AT CLOSE

01:02 - 03.210 RANGE. HE WAS ALSO IMPEACHED.

01:02 - 05.140 EFFECTIVELY IMPEACH TO TRIAL

01:02 - 06.749 WHEN HE TESTIFIED THAT HE

01:02 - 09.069 HADN'T TAKEN ANY DRUGS HAD NO

01:02 - 10.949 OPIATES IN HIS SYSTEM, HOWEVER

01:02 - 12.259 HIS MEDICAL RECORDS COME BACK

01:02 - 14.509 AND SAY THAT HE HAD TESTED

01:02 - 16.499 POSITIVE FOR OPIATES SO NOW WE

01:02 - 17.010 HAVE A

01:02 - 19.229 CREDIBILITY ISSUE AND WE ALSO

01:02 - 20.819 HAVE A PERCEPTION ISSUE FOR

01:02 - 21.530 PERSONS HIGH

01:02 - 23.659 ON OPIATES THEIR PERCEPTION AS

01:02 - 24.630 REGARD TO THE EVENTS THAT

01:02 - 26.399 OCCURRED INSIDE OF THAT CAB ARE

01:02 - 27.909 IMPACTED AND MEMORY

01:02 - 29.549 IS IMPACTED. THERE'S NO

01:02 - 31.239 EVIDENCE THAT THE VICTIM SHOT

01:02 - 32.639 HIMSELF, SO WE KNOW ONE OF

01:02 - 34.319 THESE 2 CO-DEFENDANTS WERE BOTH

01:02 - 36.350 SHOT. IT WAS A SHOT IN THE

01:02 - 38.409 RIGHT UPPER EXTREMITY FROM THE

01:02 - 39.949 BACK OF THE VEHICLE WHICH IS

01:02 - 42.799 MISTER WILSON. THE 2 WOUNDS ON

01:02 - 45.720 THE COMPLAINANTS HEAD. WE ARE.

01:02 - 48.550 LACERATIONS

01:02 - 50.119 THERE'S NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE

01:02 - 51.379 THAT THERE ARE ANY THAT THERE'S

01:02 - 53.349 ANY SORT ANY STRIPLING WHICH

01:02 - 54.330 WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH A

01:02 - 56.369 CLOSE-RANGE SHOOTING INSIDE OF

01:02 - 58.349 A CAB IN THAT FRONT PASSENGER

01:02 - 00.690 COMPARTMENT. THERE'S NO GSR

01:03 - 02.569 OBTAINED WITH IN GUNSHOT

01:03 - 04.359 RESIDUE IN THE FRONT PASSENGER

01:03 - 05.839 COMPARTMENT, THE CAR ANYWHERE

01:03 - 06.640 NOT JUST ONE

01:03 - 08.949 MISTER DESTIN. BUT GUNSHOT

01:03 - 11.230 RESIDUE THERE'S A A TRACE

01:03 - 13.479 EVIDENCE THEY CAN BE

01:03 - 15.739 COLLECTED FROM A DASHBOARD

01:03 - 17.410 STEERING WHEEL. SO

01:03 - 19.839 THOSE INJURIES. WHEN

01:03 - 21.619 MISTER DESTIN. WE COULD BE

01:03 - 22.620 CONSISTENT

01:03 - 26.309 A BLUNT IN IMPACT INJURY AIRBAG

01:03 - 27.489 DEPLOYING AHEAD HITTING A

01:03 - 29.579 STEERING WHEEL. AND ESPECIALLY

01:03 - 30.400 WHEN YOU CONSIDER HIS

01:03 - 32.309 CREDIBILITY ISSUES THAT HE SAID

01:03 - 34.159 HE WASN'T HIGH ON OPIATES YET

01:03 - 35.549 HE TEST POSITIVE AT THE

01:03 - 37.329 HOSPITAL THAT GOES TO

01:03 - 38.839 CREDIBILITY AND ALSO GOES TO

01:03 - 42.380 MEMORY AND PERCEPTION. SO THAT

01:03 - 44.409 I DIDN'T DID THE SUPERIOR COURT

01:03 - 45.300 GET TO THE HARMLESS ERROR

01:03 - 47.069 QUESTION. I'M SORRY SIR TO THE

01:03 - 49.079 SUPERIOR COURT GET TO THE

01:03 - 50.279 HARMLESS ERROR EVEN STAYED IN

01:03 - 53.299 TOUCH THAT. THE HARMLESS ISSUE

01:03 - 54.990 WASN'T PRESENTED IN TILL.

01:03 - 58.150 MY BEST RECOLLECTION WAS THE

01:03 - 00.880 APPELLATE AND MAKE US BRIEFED

01:04 - 01.310 THAT'S

01:04 - 03.569 BEFORE YOU. TODAY I DON'T I

01:04 - 05.479 DON'T RECALLS A ADDRESSING ANY

01:04 - 07.219 HARMLESS IS SO SHOULD WE LET'S

01:04 - 08.969 ASSUME, LET'S ASSUME WE FIND A

01:04 - 10.500 VIOLATION HERE.

01:04 - 13.449 SHOULD WE GET THE HARMLESS

01:04 - 14.689 ERROR SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR

01:04 - 16.359 HARMLESS OR ANALYSIS. I DON'T

01:04 - 17.819 THINK YOU GET A HARMLESS ERROR

01:04 - 18.590 YOU KNOW I

01:04 - 20.579 WELL WE FIND A BRUTAL VIOLATION

01:04 - 21.979 WEEKEND THAT DOESN'T THE

01:04 - 22.700 COMMONWEALTH HAVE AN

01:04 - 24.119 OPPORTUNITY TO OCEAN THEY HAVE

01:04 - 25.459 YET HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO

01:04 - 27.210 ARGUE AND AS YOU SAY PRESENT.

01:04 - 29.419 HARMLESS ERROR ARGUMENT YEAH,

01:04 - 30.589 I MEAN THEY CAN THEY CAN

01:04 - 31.849 PRESENT IT, BUT I DON'T I

01:04 - 32.850 WOULD.

01:04 - 34.669 ASK YOU TO NOT

01:04 - 36.449 ENTERTAIN IT AND I'D ASK YOU

01:04 - 39.029 THAT REMANDED IT BACK MIGHT BE

01:04 - 40.150 A AN OPTION.

01:04 - 42.679 SO THAT THAT WOULD BE MY MY

01:04 - 43.680 RESPONSE TO

01:04 - 45.869 WE'D LIKE TO SUPERIOR COURT

01:04 - 47.529 DIDN'T ADDRESS IT AT ALL WASN'T

01:04 - 48.839 PRESENTED IN ANY BRIEFS

01:04 - 50.479 HOPEFULLY I ADDRESS THAT

01:04 - 52.869 THAT ISSUE. I JUST YOU THAT I

01:04 - 54.339 THINK YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF WE

01:04 - 55.789 FIND A BRITON VIOLATION YOU

01:04 - 57.629 BELIEVE. IT

01:04 - 59.679 SHOULD BE IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY

01:04 - 00.330 THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE AN

01:05 - 02.239 OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE HARMLESS

01:05 - 03.379 ERROR WE SHOULD REMANDED TO THE

01:05 - 04.609 SUPERIOR COURT WE SHOULD NOT

01:05 - 06.359 ADDRESS THE NATION THAT THAT'S

01:05 - 07.430 THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT.

01:05 - 08.969 WHAT'S THE BENEFIT IN THAT

01:05 - 10.269 CIRCUMSTANCE OF HAVING THE

01:05 - 11.919 SUPERIOR COURT IN IN SUCH A

01:05 - 13.529 SCENARIO LOOK AT THAT RATHER

01:05 - 14.530 THAN US.

01:05 - 18.450 THAT WE HAVE BRIEFING.

01:05 - 22.869 IT WOULD CERTAINLY ALLOW ME

01:05 - 25.339 THE OPPORTUNITY I GUESS BOTH

01:05 - 27.389 PARTIES OPPORTUNITY TO TO FULLY

01:05 - 29.679 DELVE INTO THAT ISSUE MORE SO

01:05 - 30.070 AS AS

01:05 - 33.129 A CENTRAL PART OF THE CASE AS

01:05 - 34.739 OPPOSED TO MORE OF A OF UPPER

01:05 - 35.740 IF REAL.

01:05 - 40.479 ADDRESSING OF I YEAH I THINK

01:05 - 42.159 THIS CASE AND AT THIS PERIOD

01:05 - 42.660 COURT WAS

01:05 - 45.949 STRICTLY BRUTON. AND IN AND

01:05 - 47.919 WHEN YOU GRACIOUSLY ACCEPTED MY

01:05 - 50.329 PEEL IT WAS IT WAS STRICTLY

01:05 - 53.019 BRUTON SO I THINK IF YOU WERE

01:05 - 54.439 TO REMANDED TO THE

01:05 - 56.839 SUPERIOR COURT. IT WOULD ALLOW

01:05 - 58.899 EVERYBODY INVOLVED TO NOW FOCUS

01:05 - 00.010 ALL OF THEIR EFFORTS.

01:06 - 04.769 ALL RESOURCES TO MAKE SURE WE

01:06 - 05.770 GET IT RIGHT

01:06 - 08.230 YOU KNOW ON THE ISSUE

01:06 - 09.899 OF HARMLESS BECAUSE WE GOT TO

01:06 - 11.179 WHERE WE COULD ACCOMPLISH

01:06 - 12.939 STOPPED ALLOWING FURTHER

01:06 - 14.459 BRIEFING IN THIS CASE AS WELL

01:06 - 16.049 BEFORE THIS COURT. YES, YES,

01:06 - 17.540 YOUR HONOR COUNCIL. YES, SIR,

01:06 - 19.330 WHAT THE REMEDY YOU SEEK.

01:06 - 22.330 THAT IN ANY ROUTINES.

01:06 - 24.760 STATEMENT IS TO BE INTRODUCED

01:06 - 26.030 THAT THERE SHOULD BE A

01:06 - 28.030 SEVERANCE OF A JOINT TRIAL.

01:06 - 29.889 WHAT IS THAT WHAT IS IT THAT

01:06 - 30.400 YOU'RE SEEKING.

01:06 - 32.170 NO I'M NOT GOING TO.

01:06 - 34.469 PRESENT THAT I THINK BRUTON

01:06 - 34.730 MADE

01:06 - 38.029 THAT CLEAR. CERTAINLY IN LINE

01:06 - 40.429 WITH ALL OF THE FEDERAL THE

01:06 - 41.720 TRILOGY OF CASES.

01:06 - 44.979 I THINK SEVERANCE IN ALL CASES

01:06 - 46.079 WHERE THERE'S A CONFESSION

01:06 - 47.449 WOULD BE AN EXTREME REMEDY.

01:06 - 49.959 IT CERTAINLY WITH TAXI FROM A

01:06 - 52.059 POLICY STANDPOINT, IT WOULD TAX

01:06 - 54.169 THE JUSTICE SYSTEM EXTREMELY

01:06 - 55.800 HAVING TO BE MULTIPLE TRIALS.

01:06 - 58.419 I THINK WHAT THIS COURT SHOULD

01:06 - 01.189 DO IS GIVE

01:07 - 05.280 US A A STANDARD. THAT IS

01:07 - 06.420 WITHIN

01:07 - 08.769 THE TRILOGY OF CASES THAT

01:07 - 10.429 SUBMITTED BY THE SUPREME COURT

01:07 - 11.740 THE BRIGHT LINE.

01:07 - 15.059 A TEST THAT NOT SEE ATED IN

01:07 - 16.789 TRAVERS SEEMS TO BE

01:07 - 18.949 SOMEWHAT UNWORKABLE AND AND ON

01:07 - 20.599 THE OTHER SO THE THE OTHER SIDE

01:07 - 21.939 OF THE ANALYSIS WOULD BE YOU

01:07 - 23.270 HAVE AN UNWORKABLE

01:07 - 25.419 A STANDARD. IT'S JUST AS

01:07 - 28.680 INEFFICIENT AS AS

01:07 - 30.729 A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO

01:07 - 32.719 SEVER ALL OF THE CASES 2, 3,

01:07 - 34.589 TRIALS AND THAT SORT OF THING

01:07 - 37.529 SO. SINCE TREY VERGES IS

01:07 - 40.709 CREATING SO MUCH. JUDICIAL

01:07 - 42.579 AND EFFICIENCY. I THINK THAT

01:07 - 44.750 THAT THE CORRECT WAY TOO

01:07 - 48.640 POLICY ISSUE AS FOR THIS COURT

01:07 - 51.589 TO TO COME UP WITH THE

01:07 - 53.579 CORRECT SOLUTION. ONE HOW THESE

01:07 - 55.319 TYPE OF CASES SHOULD

01:07 - 56.889 BE HANDLED. WELL THAT COUNCIL

01:07 - 58.059 WHAT WHAT IS THAT CORRECT

01:07 - 59.460 SOLUTION I MEAN IN THIS

01:08 - 02.919 I'M WHAT IS IT ACTUALLY

01:08 - 04.930 POSSIBLE. 2

01:08 - 07.959 REDACT THIS CAN BE CONFESSION

01:08 - 09.729 IN A WAY THAT WOULD

01:08 - 11.079 NOT HAVE IMPLICATED YOUR

01:08 - 12.080 CLIENT.

01:08 - 14.249 I MEAN IT IT MAY BE THERE ARE

01:08 - 15.619 CERTAIN CASES WHERE YOU NEED

01:08 - 17.299 TEMPER TRIALS, I'M ASKING YOU

01:08 - 18.949 THOUGH IN THIS CASE WAS THEIR

01:08 - 20.729 WAY FOR THIS COMPASSION TO BE

01:08 - 22.409 REDACTED IN THE WAY THAT WOULD

01:08 - 23.410 HAVE.

01:08 - 25.010 NEUTRALIZE IT.

01:08 - 27.499 I DON'T I WOULD NOT THINK SO

01:08 - 30.849 YOUR HONOR. I'M IN LOVE WITH

01:08 - 32.699 RICHARDSON. I'M IN LOVE WITH

01:08 - 34.610 THE WAY RICHARDSON TOOK

01:08 - 37.859 THE DEFENDANT OUT OF THE

01:08 - 38.390 STATEMENT

01:08 - 38.900 AT ALL.

01:08 - 41.489 SHORT OF THAT THE OTHER GUY

01:08 - 43.339 IS MORE NEUTRAL, THEN MY FRIEND

01:08 - 44.779 IN THIS CASE WHERE MY FRIEND

01:08 - 47.029 HAS ALREADY BEEN CHARACTERIZED

01:08 - 48.489 AS THE FRIEND FROM THE

01:08 - 51.340 FIREHOUSE WHEN THE OTHER GUY

01:08 - 52.800 THE MORE NEUTRAL.

01:08 - 57.379 THE OTHER GUY MIGHT BE BUT IN

01:08 - 59.359 THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE WHERE

01:08 - 00.779 THEY WITH THE DA'S OFFICE

01:09 - 01.780 PURPOSELY.

01:09 - 03.879 POLICED. MISSED MISTER

01:09 - 06.209 HOUSTON'S TESTIMONY. THE

01:09 - 08.319 OTHER GUY AT JACK'S FIREHOUSE I

01:09 - 09.599 THINK WOULD WOULD STILL WANT TO

01:09 - 11.759 FOUL OF BREWTON FOR ONE SAY THE

01:09 - 13.499 OTHER GUY JACK'S FIREHOUSE

01:09 - 14.909 RIGHT WE JUST I MEAN MANY WE

01:09 - 16.539 HAVE MANY CASES WHERE THEY USE

01:09 - 17.920 THAT TERM THE OTHER GUY.

01:09 - 20.299 THAT SEEMS PRETTY HARMLESS

01:09 - 23.329 PRETTY NEUTRAL. APROPOS JUSTICE

01:09 - 25.649 CAUGHT. AND IT SEEMED

01:09 - 27.550 TO ME THAT.

01:09 - 29.850 THE CASE LAW

01:09 - 32.290 HERE ROOM RICHARD SAID I

01:09 - 33.820 TRAVERS

01:09 - 36.409 OUR CASE IS IS PLENTY CLEAR IN

01:09 - 37.449 YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT WAS

01:09 - 40.069 A MISAPPLICATION BECAUSE

01:09 - 41.219 ANYBODY LISTENING TO THIS

01:09 - 43.049 STATEMENT WOULD KNOW THAT YOUR

01:09 - 44.989 CLIENT WAS THE CO-DEFENDANT

01:09 - 45.990 HERE.

01:09 - 48.019 AND SO IT DIDN'T SEEM TO ME

01:09 - 49.380 THAT WE NEEDED TO.

01:09 - 52.540 AND NONE CA TO DO STANDARD.

01:09 - 55.029 CLARIFY BRUTON FOR THE U.S.

01:09 - 56.959 SUPREME COURT WE JUST NEEDED TO

01:09 - 57.960 APPLY IT,

01:09 - 00.289 THAT'S THE TRUE VIEW EVEN EVEN

01:10 - 01.740 UNDER THE STANDARD OF TRAITORS

01:10 - 04.130 THIS IS A PROVEN VIOLATION.

01:10 - 07.309 SO ARE YOU LOOKING FOR

01:10 - 09.109 NEW LAW OR ARE YOU LOOKING FOR

01:10 - 11.109 WHAT YOU SEE AS THE

01:10 - 14.039 APPLICATION OF A CLEAR LAW TO

01:10 - 15.140 THE FACTS OF YOUR CASE.

01:10 - 17.749 I'M LOOKING TO HAVE

01:10 - 20.359 MY CLIENT. BACK IN THE COURT OF

01:10 - 22.699 COMMON PLEAS. I THINK THAT THE

01:10 - 24.180 DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION.

01:10 - 26.820 CERTAINLY HAS A MORE BROADER.

01:10 - 28.230 GOAL.

01:10 - 31.939 AND I MY MY NARROW PURPOSE HERE

01:10 - 33.209 IS TO CONVINCE

01:10 - 35.099 THIS COURT THAT THOUGH WE'RE

01:10 - 36.349 GOING YOU'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT

01:10 - 37.620 THE ROAD TO GET YEAH.

01:10 - 40.539 I HAVE SAID IT BETTER HAVE ONE

01:10 - 41.540 QUICK QUESTION

01:10 - 43.809 YOUR ANSWER TO JUSTICE TODD'S

01:10 - 45.639 QUESTION WERE SHE WAS TALKING

01:10 - 46.829 ABOUT THE STANDARD USE AND

01:10 - 48.589 TRAVER IS WHERE THE WORD

01:10 - 49.600 SUBSTITUTE IT

01:10 - 52.880 THE OTHER GUY IN THIS CASE.

01:10 - 56.120 THE WORD SUBSTITUTED WAS

01:10 - 58.359 MY FRIEND AND IT SEEMS TO ME

01:10 - 59.729 THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR

01:10 - 02.089 CIRCUMSTANCE. GIVEN THE FACT

01:11 - 04.679 THAT WE'RE THE STATEMENT ITSELF

01:11 - 06.500 TALKED ABOUT 2 DIFFERENT PEOPLE

01:11 - 08.909 BEING MY FRIEND DOESN'T THAT

01:11 - 11.049 WEAKEN YOUR ARGUMENT IN THIS

01:11 - 13.550 CASE. WELL I YOU KNOW I

01:11 - 16.239 IT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE

01:11 - 18.440 PURPOSE FOR PLACEMENT OF.

01:11 - 21.630 MISTER

01:11 - 23.619 HOUSTON'S TESTIMONY. I THINK I

01:11 - 25.409 WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THE

01:11 - 27.669 IT WITHIN A STATEMENT. IT THERE

01:11 - 28.670 IS A SENTENCE.

01:11 - 31.489 MY RECOLLECTION I

01:11 - 32.589 WILL HAVE THOSE NOTES IN FRONT

01:11 - 34.229 OF ME WHERE THERE'S A SPECIFIC

01:11 - 35.399 REFERENCE TO MY FRIEND AT

01:11 - 36.400 JACK'S FIREHOUSE.

01:11 - 39.749 SO WITHOUT WITHOUT WITH THAT

01:11 - 41.489 THE JACKS FIREHOUSE I

01:11 - 43.489 THINK THAT. WHAT YOU JUST

01:11 - 45.249 ARTICULATED ENUNCIATED WOULD BE

01:11 - 47.369 CORRECT AND COUNCIL AS I RECALL

01:11 - 49.269 THE RECORD THAT WAS ALSO

01:11 - 51.000 COUPLED WITH THE BOSS SAID.

01:11 - 53.760 MIKE'S FIREHOUSE SAYING

01:11 - 55.799 THESE 2 GUYS WERE FRIENDS

01:11 - 57.279 OF MIKE'S FIREHOUSE THAT'S

01:11 - 59.679 GREAT BE JAX FIRE HAD ASKED FOR

01:11 - 03.369 ONLY ONE HAHA YOU CONFUSE ME

01:12 - 03.910 A BIT.

01:12 - 05.579 YOU INDICATED THAT YOU

01:12 - 07.969 BELIEVE THAT CASE WILL SHARES

01:12 - 09.709 WITH US. THE WAY WE SHOULD

01:12 - 11.639 INTERPRET PRUDENT. RICHARDSON

01:12 - 13.189 VERSUS MARCH UNITED STATES

01:12 - 14.779 SUPREME COURT INDICATED THAT

01:12 - 15.780 YOU CAN.

01:12 - 18.890 INTRODUCED A STATEMENT

01:12 - 20.750 WITH THE HOPE THAT THE

01:12 - 22.079 CO-DEFENDANT STATEMENT WOULD

01:12 - 23.739 IMPLICATE THE DEFENDANT THROUGH

01:12 - 25.480 OTHER EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.

01:12 - 27.540 THAT'S WHAT RICHARDS IN THE

01:12 - 29.499 STANDS RIGHT. YET YOU ARE

01:12 - 31.009 CHALLENGING THE COMMONWEALTH

01:12 - 34.039 STRATEGIC DECISION TO INTRODUCE

01:12 - 35.969 THAT OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH WILL

01:12 - 39.069 IMPLICATE YOUR CLIENT. HOW

01:12 - 40.130 IS THAT

01:12 - 43.089 INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT BRUTON

01:12 - 44.929 AND RICHARDSON ARE STANDING

01:12 - 45.220 FOR.

01:12 - 47.289 WELL, I THINK 1 ONE

01:12 - 50.050 SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION IS THAT

01:12 - 52.389 IN RICHARD SEN. YOU CAN TEXT

01:12 - 52.810 WILL LINK

01:12 - 55.229 WITH LINKAGE CAME AFTER THE

01:12 - 56.849 CONFESSION WAS INTRODUCED

01:12 - 59.319 INTO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THE

01:12 - 00.630 CONTEXTUAL LINKAGE

01:13 - 03.069 WAS BEFORE THE STATEMENT WAS

01:13 - 04.480 INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE

01:13 - 06.459 THEY'RE SO WHEN THE JURY HEARD

01:13 - 07.719 THE STATEMENT THERE WAS

01:13 - 10.539 NO DOUBT WHO WAS BEING REFERRED

01:13 - 11.899 TO IN THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE

01:13 - 12.990 THEY ARE READY HER.

01:13 - 15.399 WHO THE FRIEND WAS AT JACK'S

01:13 - 17.240 FIREHOUSE VERSION RICHARDSON.

01:13 - 19.390 THE STATEMENT WAS HEARD FIRST

01:13 - 22.419 AND THEN THE FEMALE CO

01:13 - 23.420 DEFENDANT.

01:13 - 26.930 MADE THE CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATION

01:13 - 28.920 WHEN SHE TESTIFIED IN COURT.

01:13 - 32.110 SO ALL OF THE 3 FEDERAL CASES.

01:13 - 34.809 RUTAN. RICHARDSON

01:13 - 36.649 IN GRAY, SAY THAT WHEN

01:13 - 37.879 THAT STATEMENT IS PRESENTED

01:13 - 39.529 BEFORE A JURY IF THERE IS NO

01:13 - 41.419 DOUBT AND IF IT'S CLEAR WHO

01:13 - 42.569 THAT PERSON IS IN THAT

01:13 - 44.399 STATEMENT THAT'S A CLEAR CUT

01:13 - 46.189 THROUGH BY ANY EVENT REIVERS US

01:13 - 47.779 AS THAT THAT I THINK THAT'S THE

01:13 - 49.490 DISTINCTION WE HAVE THE.

01:13 - 52.150 THE CONTEXTUAL.

01:13 - 55.170 THE PURPOSEFUL PLACEMENT.

01:13 - 58.200 OF MISTER HOUSTON BEFORE THE

01:13 - 00.249 CONFESSION WAS READ INTO

01:14 - 01.369 EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY THEY

01:14 - 02.519 KNEW EXACTLY WHO HE WAS AND

01:14 - 03.480 THAT CONFESSION WAS ROUTE

01:14 - 04.480 YOU'RE OUT.

01:14 - 07.819 OKAY IF THE THE EMPLOYER

01:14 - 09.389 TESTIFIED AFTER THE STATEMENT

01:14 - 10.340 WAS READ IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE

01:14 - 12.329 TELLING US. THAT LET

01:14 - 14.769 THAT LINE CLEARS THE THE ISSUE

01:14 - 15.770 BURTON ISSUE.

01:14 - 19.579 I MEAN I WOULD THINK THAT

01:14 - 21.330 THAT'S CLOSER TO RICHARD SEN.

01:14 - 25.509 THAN RICHARD IS SAYING CAN

01:14 - 26.860 TEXT TO A LINKAGE SO

01:14 - 28.599 MAYBE WOULD BE COMPLIANT

01:14 - 30.649 UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES OF

01:14 - 33.179 ABSENT THE MY ABSENCE, THE

01:14 - 35.330 EMPLOYER AT JACK'S FIREHOUSE.

01:14 - 36.839 SO ARE YOU SHARED WITH US TO

01:14 - 37.780 THINK IT'S OUR DUTY

01:14 - 39.719 AND RESPONSIBILITY TO DICTATE

01:14 - 41.439 HOW THE STRATEGIC MANEUVER OF

01:14 - 42.520 THE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD BE.

01:14 - 45.619 I'VE BEEN UP ITS INTRODUCTION

01:14 - 47.349 OF EVIDENCE NOT NOT NOT NOT AT

01:14 - 49.719 ALL I'M SAYING TO THE EXTENT

01:14 - 50.720 THAT THE

01:14 - 52.590 ACTIONS IN

01:14 - 54.829 THIS TRIAL. IT CONSISTENT WITH

01:14 - 56.589 THE JUDGE'S RULINGS VIOLATED

01:14 - 58.919 THE CONSTITUTION. THEN IT'S

01:14 - 00.120 BEEN IT'S YOUR WOULD BE

01:15 - 02.029 OBLIGATION TO

01:15 - 04.870 RECTIFY THAT AND TO MAKE SURE

01:15 - 07.099 I SET MY CLIENT AND SUFFER

01:15 - 08.439 CONSTITUTIONAL SOME SHAPE.

01:15 - 09.719 I THINK YOU GOT YOURSELF INTO

01:15 - 10.949 SOME TROUBLE THERE ISN'T IT

01:15 - 13.169 YOUR POSITION. AND I

01:15 - 14.369 THINK THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S

01:15 - 15.899 POSITION THAT IF AND THE

01:15 - 17.329 READING OF THE TOTALITY OF THE

01:15 - 19.659 RECORD. IT'S OBVIOUS TO

01:15 - 20.870 EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM

01:15 - 22.689 WHO THE OTHER GUY IS THAT

01:15 - 24.010 THAT'S A BRUTAL VIOLATION.

01:15 - 28.699 AND I THINK I THINK

01:15 - 30.489 MAYBE FOR YOU WE'RE GOING IN

01:15 - 31.989 RESPONSE TO JUSTICE MONDAY'S

01:15 - 33.330 QUESTION IF I IF I'M.

01:15 - 36.739 NOT MISS READING WHAT YOU'RE

01:15 - 37.740 SAYING IS

01:15 - 39.899 IF THE REFERENCE TO THE

01:15 - 42.429 FRIENDS AT JACK'S FIREHOUSE BY

01:15 - 43.989 THE BOSS HAD BEEN LATER IN THE

01:15 - 44.580 TRIAL.

01:15 - 46.360 IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LESS

01:15 - 49.499 IMPACTFUL THAT WAS IN THIS CASE

01:15 - 51.030 WHERE IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE.

01:15 - 54.339 MY FRIEND REFERENCE FROM THE

01:15 - 55.340 CONFESSION.

01:15 - 57.489 BUT IT COULD HAVE STILL BEEN

01:15 - 58.799 IMPACTFUL BUT THIS WAS

01:15 - 00.889 PARTICULARLY IMPACTFUL BECAUSE

01:16 - 01.989 IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE

01:16 - 04.239 CONFESSION WAS READ WRITE AND I

01:16 - 05.980 WAS RELYING ON THE 3RD CIRCUIT

01:16 - 08.110 UNITED STATES

01:16 - 10.269 TO RICHARDS WHERE THERE'S A

01:16 - 12.799 ROBBERY WHERE YOU HAD THE

01:16 - 15.090 RIGHT. THE STATEMENT.

01:16 - 17.569 THAT INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A

01:16 - 18.899 FRIEND WHO COMMITTED THE

01:16 - 20.349 ROBBERY AND THEN RIGHT AFTER

01:16 - 21.350 THAT YOU HAD.

01:16 - 24.450 A DETECTIVE. PRESENT

01:16 - 27.319 THE STATEMENT AND 3RD CIRCUIT

01:16 - 29.929 SAID THAT IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO

01:16 - 31.940 THIS CASE THAT YOU KNOW

01:16 - 33.559 THE AND I THAT'S WHERE I GOT MY

01:16 - 35.149 LANGUAGE PURPOSEFUL PLACEMENT

01:16 - 35.570 THERE WAS PER

01:16 - 37.119 FOOT PLACEMENT OF THESE

01:16 - 38.679 WITNESSES AND THAT PURPOSE

01:16 - 39.939 REPLACEMENT CREATED EITHER

01:16 - 42.739 THE FACIAL. NO IMPLICATION OR

01:16 - 44.759 THE BLATANT LINKAGE OK THANK

01:16 - 45.889 YOU I THINK WE UNDERSTAND YOUR

01:16 - 46.999 POSITION I DID HAVE A MISSION

01:16 - 48.809 CHIEF HAS JUST SPENT A LOT OF

01:16 - 50.340 TIME ON THE JACKS FIREHOUSE

01:16 - 54.140 ANY BRUTON

01:16 - 56.789 CONCERNS WITH MY FRIEND IN THE

01:16 - 58.379 FRONT MY FRIEND IN THE BACK HE

01:16 - 59.020 SHE.

01:16 - 00.419 THE PRONOUNS THAT WERE USED

01:17 - 02.239 THERE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE

01:17 - 04.039 ARE. OR ARE WE JUST REALLY JUST

01:17 - 04.990 BE FOCUSING ON THE JACKS

01:17 - 05.990 FIREHOUSE.

01:17 - 08.819 WELL I WOULD THINK IN THIS

01:17 - 10.199 CASE BECAUSE THAT WE HAD 2

01:17 - 11.579 CO-DEFENDANTS, ONE WAS MALE ONE

01:17 - 13.389 WAS FEMALE THAT KIND OF A THING

01:17 - 15.109 RIGHT NOW AND I THE FACTS MAKE

01:17 - 16.319 CLEAR THAT THE FEAT WAS A

01:17 - 17.949 FEMALE GOT INTO THE REAR WITH

01:17 - 18.950 THE CONFESSOR.

01:17 - 21.569 THAT A MALE GOT INTO THE

01:17 - 24.140 FRONT. FOR MY NARROW

01:17 - 27.209 I MIGHT NOT HAVE ANY ANY

01:17 - 30.139 DIFFICULTY WITH YOU KNOW, AND

01:17 - 30.330 THAT'S

01:17 - 32.149 THE NATION. I THINK THAT'S

01:17 - 33.849 WHAT'S TROUBLESOME IS WHEN WE

01:17 - 36.119 HAVE THE JACKS FIREHOUSE MY

01:17 - 37.239 FRIEND WHO WORK IN JACK'S

01:17 - 38.940 FIREHOUSE THAT WAS TANTAMOUNT

01:17 - 41.100 TO SAYING MICHAEL JONES.

01:17 - 43.280 WITHIN

01:17 - 46.069 THE NARROW CONTEXT OF MY CLIENT

01:17 - 47.070 WITHOUT ANY

01:17 - 51.680 OVERRIDING LEGAL.

01:17 - 55.929 WITHIN THE NARROW SCOPE OF MY

01:17 - 57.699 CASE MY FRIEND AT JACK'S

01:17 - 59.599 FIREHOUSE IT FROM MISTER

01:17 - 01.259 HOUSTON AND THEN IMMEDIATELY

01:18 - 02.260 FOLLOWING.

01:18 - 05.099 THAT'S BRUTAL AND I JUST JUST

01:18 - 06.780 ONE JUST ONE FINAL POINT.

01:18 - 07.950 THERE WAS ALSO

01:18 - 13.259 WASHINGTON THE. THE DEPARTMENT

01:18 - 14.999 OF CORRECTIONS IT WAS ALMOST

01:18 - 16.229 THE SAME THING WE

01:18 - 18.129 HAD TAYLOR. TAYLOR WAS AN

01:18 - 20.269 EYEWITNESS TO HE WAS A PARTISAN

01:18 - 22.379 PARTICIPANT AND EYEWITNESS IN A

01:18 - 24.719 ROBBERY. WE HAD TO CONFESS OR

01:18 - 27.119 WHITE. WHY THE STATEMENT WAS

01:18 - 30.019 REDACTED TO SAY THE DRIVER AND

01:18 - 31.020 THE OTHER GUY.

01:18 - 34.259 TAYLOR TESTIFIED RIGHT BEFORE

01:18 - 36.169 WHY THESE CONFESSION WAS READ I

01:18 - 37.580 THINK IT WAS LIKE A 3 DAY.

01:18 - 41.159 A SEPARATION AND IT'S IT SOUNDS

01:18 - 41.790 LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A

01:18 - 43.719 WEEKEND. BUT THAT THE OPINION

01:18 - 44.889 MAKES CLEAR THAT THERE WAS ONLY

01:18 - 45.800 LIKE IT A

01:18 - 47.809 FEW HOURS FROM ONE PERSON

01:18 - 49.229 TESTIFYING TO ANOTHER EVEN

01:18 - 50.469 THOSE OVER THE COURSE OF A

01:18 - 53.299 FEW DAYS. THAT'S THIS CASE AND

01:18 - 54.789 THAT'S FROM THE 3RD CIRCUIT WE

01:18 - 56.459 HAVE TAYLOR WHO WAS THE

01:18 - 58.879 EYEWITNESS AND AND ALSO THE THE

01:18 - 00.139 THE 3RD CIRCUIT FOUND IT

01:19 - 01.859 WASN'T HARMLESS. SO IT'S THE

01:19 - 03.229 SAME WAY THAT TAYLOR IS AN

01:19 - 05.329 EYEWITNESS AND TAYLOR WAS HIGH

01:19 - 07.019 ON DRUGS TOO. SO THE SAME WE

01:19 - 08.540 HAVE TAYLOR IS AN EYEWITNESS.

01:19 - 10.969 YOU HAVE THE CONFESSOR WADI IN

01:19 - 12.329 THIS CASE. TAYLOR IS MISTER

01:19 - 14.989 DESTIN. THE CONFESSOR IS US

01:19 - 17.869 AID WILSON. AND YOU HAVE THE

01:19 - 19.219 DRUG ISSUE THAT IMPACTED

01:19 - 20.959 PERCEPTION WHICH THE 3RD

01:19 - 22.400 CIRCUIT SAID YOU KNOW WHAT.

01:19 - 25.710 THAT'S NOT A HARMLESS ERROR.

01:19 - 29.749 SO. WASHINGTON VERSUS IN THERE

01:19 - 30.900 TO WASHINGTON'S.

01:19 - 33.670 IT WENT UP TO THE SUPREME COURT

01:19 - 35.959 AND THEN CAME BACK. BUT BOTH OF

01:19 - 37.639 THEM ARE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A

01:19 - 39.589 PROVEN VIOLATION AND THAT THE

01:19 - 42.679 ERROR WAS NOT HARM US AND THOSE

01:19 - 45.200 CAKE THAT THAT CASE WASHINGTON.

01:19 - 47.349 THIS IS CLOSE TO THE

01:19 - 50.879 INSTANT CASE AS UNITED STATES

01:19 - 51.979 WE RETURN. THANK YOU

01:19 - 53.559 VERY MUCH. THANK YOU TO WITH

01:19 - 56.070 JOY AND I WAS A GOOD FINISH US.

01:19 - 57.709 I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO LOSE

01:19 - 58.949 THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET YOUR

01:19 - 59.570 PERSPECTIVE

01:19 - 02.149 ON THIS WAYS IT PROBLEMATIC

01:20 - 03.669 THAT THE DETECTIVE BEFORE

01:20 - 05.489 READING THE CONFESSION STATED

01:20 - 06.210 THAT IT WEIGHS

01:20 - 07.370 8 BILLY DID.

01:20 - 11.039 VERSION OF THE CONFESSION OF

01:20 - 12.040 COURSE I MEAN

01:20 - 14.639 I COULDN'T I THINK HE USED I

01:20 - 15.929 THINK THE WORD WITH REDACTED IN

01:20 - 18.109 THE ACT AS WE GET IT, YES, BUT

01:20 - 20.739 I YOU KNOW THAT ALERTED THE

01:20 - 22.160 JURY THAT THERE HAD BEEN

01:20 - 25.759 CHANGES FOR ME AND ESPECIALLY

01:20 - 26.670 WHEN YOU READ THAT IN THE

01:20 - 28.629 CONTEXT OF THE PURPOSEFUL

01:20 - 30.560 PLACEMENT OF THE WITNESSES.

01:20 - 33.649 IT IT WAS NO DOUBT THAT

01:20 - 34.919 CONFESSION WAS READ THAT

01:20 - 36.389 REDACTED CONFESSION WHICH READ

01:20 - 37.729 THE JURY KNEW THEY WERE HEARING

01:20 - 39.019 REDACTED CONFESSION WHEN THEY

01:20 - 40.329 HEAR FRIEND AND FRIEND AND

01:20 - 41.909 FRIEND AND FRIEND. THERE'S NO

01:20 - 43.889 DOUBT THE PERSON THAT DAY WE'RE

01:20 - 44.560 LOOKING AT THE

01:20 - 47.119 DEFENSE TABLE WAS MICHAEL JONES

01:20 - 48.400 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

01:20 - 57.630 AND YOU'RE ARGUING AMICUS IN.

01:20 - 59.680 ARE YOU FROM THE PHILADELPHIA

01:20 - 01.719 DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION. YES,

01:21 - 02.800 YOU'RE ON REDDIT.

01:21 - 05.900 ERIC MORNING YEAR HONORS

01:21 - 07.059 MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE AND MAY IT

01:21 - 08.489 PLEASE THE COURT. AARON

01:21 - 10.139 MARCUS FROM THE DEFENDER

01:21 - 12.079 ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF AMICUS

01:21 - 13.449 DEFENDER ASSOCIATION HERE IN

01:21 - 14.789 SUPPORT OF THE PALIN MICHAEL

01:21 - 15.790 JONES.

01:21 - 19.260 PROVIDING A A

01:21 - 21.519 FREEFORM'S NARRATIVE I'D LIKE

01:21 - 22.829 TO JUST RESPOND TO SOME OF YOUR

01:21 - 24.149 HONOR'S QUESTIONS I THINK IS

01:21 - 25.570 THAT MIGHT BE THE MOST HELPFUL.

01:21 - 28.459 FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO

01:21 - 30.549 SUGGEST THAT TRAVERS DOES NEED

01:21 - 33.259 TO BE CLARIFIED TO PREVENT THE

01:21 - 34.810 CONTINUING PROBLEM THAT

01:21 - 37.609 SURELY USING A NEUTRAL PRONOUN

01:21 - 39.509 IS APPARENTLY ALWAYS SUFFICIENT

01:21 - 41.260 TO SATISFY BRITAIN VIOLATION

01:21 - 42.989 THAT THAT THAT IS NOT THE LAWN

01:21 - 44.899 CANNOT BE LAW WHICH CAN TEXT TO

01:21 - 45.900 US NEXT.

01:21 - 47.570 IT IS IT IS

01:21 - 49.449 NOT CONTEXTUAL IN THE CONTEXT

01:21 - 50.889 OF THE RICHARDSON BAND OF THE

01:21 - 52.260 CAN TEXT OR IMPLICATION.

01:21 - 54.889 OBVIOUSNESS IS THIS COURT

01:21 - 56.229 ALREADY SUGGESTED DURING THE

01:21 - 57.230 ARGUMENT.

01:21 - 59.199 IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE CONTEST

01:21 - 01.169 AND SOME DEGREE CERTAINLY CAN

01:22 - 01.880 TEXT OR TO THE

01:22 - 03.879 STATEMENT ITSELF AND THAT'S

01:22 - 05.019 SOMETHING I WANTED TO GET INTO

01:22 - 06.319 THE SECOND POINT WHICH IS THE

01:22 - 07.899 STATEMENT IN THIS CASE WAS

01:22 - 08.380 BEFORE YOU

01:22 - 09.380 MOVE ON.

01:22 - 11.399 ASSUMING THAT YOUR POSITION

01:22 - 13.349 PREVAILS IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT

01:22 - 14.510 IT WAS TRAVER YS

01:22 - 16.899 THAT WHAT CAUSED THE SUPERIOR

01:22 - 17.990 COURT. THE AIR.

01:22 - 20.609 I THINK IT WAS STRANGE OR

01:22 - 22.520 TRAVERS AND ITS PROGENY RON.

01:22 - 24.480 YOU KNOW THERE'S BEEN THERE'S

01:22 - 26.009 BEEN SEVERAL STATEMENTS EITHER

01:22 - 27.359 BY THIS COURT IN SIMPLY

01:22 - 29.019 REAFFIRMING TRADERS AND

01:22 - 30.519 SIGNIFICANTLY BY THE SUPERIOR

01:22 - 32.209 COURT IN DISCUSSING THAT NEAR

01:22 - 34.059 USE OF A NEUTRAL PRONOUN WILL

01:22 - 35.190 ALWAYS BE SUFFICIENT.

01:22 - 36.999 CERTAINLY REDACTION OF THE

01:22 - 37.770 DEFENDANT'S NAME

01:22 - 39.869 IS NECESSARY. BUT DOES NOT

01:22 - 41.369 ALWAYS SUFFICIENT TO SIMPLY

01:22 - 42.799 REDACT THAT NAME AND REPLACE IT

01:22 - 44.179 WITH A NEUTRAL PRONOUN IS VERY

01:22 - 45.210 CLEARLY THIS.

01:22 - 47.009 THIS STATEMENT IN THIS CASE THE

01:22 - 48.689 4 PAGES OF TRANSCRIPT THAT THE

01:22 - 49.950 STATEMENT OCCUPIES.

01:22 - 51.959 YOU KNOW IN ADDITION TO SOME OF

01:22 - 53.209 THE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY

01:22 - 56.069 MENTIONED THIS STATEMENT WITHIN

01:22 - 58.469 IT LITERALLY HAVE AS A POINT

01:22 - 00.319 A FINGER DISCUSSION

01:23 - 02.539 WHERE CLARENCE WILSON IS

01:23 - 04.549 TALKING ABOUT IDENTIFYING THE

01:23 - 05.699 PERSON IN THE BACK WITH THE

01:23 - 07.280 PURSE AND

01:23 - 09.469 THE PERSON IN THE GRAY JACKET

01:23 - 11.289 IN A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY

01:23 - 13.009 A DETECTIVE THE ACCUSATORY

01:23 - 14.010 LANGRIDGE

01:23 - 17.279 IS BEYOND THE PALE IT IS

01:23 - 19.030 CERTAINLY YEARS WORRYING

01:23 - 21.200 MISTER MARCUS.

01:23 - 23.799 IS THERE ANY ANY UNDER THE

01:23 - 24.380 FACTS OF

01:23 - 26.589 THIS CASE. ANYWAY THAT IS

01:23 - 28.459 STATEMENT WOULD NOT VIOLATE

01:23 - 29.890 THROUGH SALUTE LEE.

01:23 - 31.959 YES, SO THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD

01:23 - 33.369 HAPPEN SO THAT COULD BE A JOINT

01:23 - 34.610 ROUTE CERTAINLY.

01:23 - 37.579 I UNDERTOOK

01:23 - 39.399 THIS THIS PROCESS BECAUSE I

01:23 - 40.649 BELIEVE THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT

01:23 - 42.689 QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE

01:23 - 43.999 STATEMENT COULD BE REDACTED IN

01:23 - 45.439 THE WAY THAT SATISFIES THE 6TH

01:23 - 47.239 AMENDMENT AND MISTER JONES

01:23 - 48.859 CONFRONTATION RIGHT LET ME GIVE

01:23 - 49.909 YOU ACTUALLY AN EXAMPLE TO

01:23 - 52.749 START OUT. FIRST AS TO HOW HOW

01:23 - 54.009 THIS COULD BE DONE IN THE WAY

01:23 - 55.010 THAT I THINK.

01:23 - 57.189 GRAVE IN TALKS RICHARDSON

01:23 - 59.610 EXEMPLIFIES HAS A VALUE.

01:23 - 01.949 SO FIRST WHAT WE HAVE IS THE

01:24 - 03.249 VERY BEGINNING OF THE STATEMENT

01:24 - 04.619 STARTS OUT THAT WAS READ TO THE

01:24 - 05.200 JURY IN THE

01:24 - 07.669 REDACTED FORM MYSELF MY FRIEND

01:24 - 08.989 HAD CLOCKED OUT OF WORK IN

01:24 - 10.979 ABOUT 10 TO 11:00PM ON FEBRUARY

01:24 - 12.229 5TH, WE WORK AT JACK'S

01:24 - 14.579 FIREHOUSE VERY SIMPLY JUST A

01:24 - 16.609 START CONSISTENT WITH HOW THE

01:24 - 17.590 STATEMENTS REDACTED AND

01:24 - 19.089 RICHARDSON AND AND EXISTS

01:24 - 20.309 THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY ON A

01:24 - 21.919 DAILY BASIS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN

01:24 - 24.209 VERY EASILY CHANGED TO SAY I

01:24 - 25.600 PLUCKED OUT OF WORK AT 10 TO

01:24 - 27.560 11:00PM ON FEBRUARY 5TH.

01:24 - 30.039 I WORK AT JACK'S FIREHOUSE JUST

01:24 - 31.859 THOSE 2 LINES. IT'S IMPORTANT

01:24 - 33.160 TO RECOGNIZE ONE.

01:24 - 34.469 IT IS CLEARLY STILL

01:24 - 36.819 INCRIMINATING TO THE CLARENCE

01:24 - 38.309 WILSON WHO THE INFORMATION TO

01:24 - 40.470 BE PRESENTED AGAINST AND 2

01:24 - 42.419 MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT DOESN'T

01:24 - 43.569 HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS CAN

01:24 - 45.370 TEXT TO A LINKAGE BECAUSE

01:24 - 47.509 HERE THE COMMONWEALTH COULD

01:24 - 48.579 STILL INTRODUCE MISTER

01:24 - 51.399 HOUSTON'S TESTIMONY THAT THE

01:24 - 52.549 THAT MISTER JONES WORKS OF

01:24 - 54.629 JACK'S FIREHOUSE BUT IT'S NOT

01:24 - 55.779 APPARENT FROM THE FACE OF THE

01:24 - 57.889 STATEMENT AT ALL THAT MISTER

01:24 - 58.860 WILSON IS

01:24 - 00.669 ACCUSING ANYONE, HE'S NOT

01:25 - 02.339 POINTING THE FINGER CASTLE WHAT

01:25 - 03.589 WE'RE ASKING THE COUNCIL SHARE

01:25 - 05.479 WITH ME WHERE IS THERE ANY

01:25 - 07.250 OTHER AREA OF THE LAW.

01:25 - 09.959 THAT JUDICIAL MANIPULATION

01:25 - 11.489 IS PERMITTED FOR THE

01:25 - 12.589 INTRODUCTION

01:25 - 14.719 OF EVIDENCE WHEN IT'S

01:25 - 16.649 INFLUENCING THE ULTIMATE

01:25 - 18.549 OUTCOME OF THE CASE CERTAINLY

01:25 - 19.210 AND I THINK I

01:25 - 21.149 THINK ONE IT'S A MISNOMER TO

01:25 - 22.940 SAY THIS JUDICIAL MANIPULATION.

01:25 - 24.839 THE GOVERNMENT THE COMMONWEALTH

01:25 - 26.189 HERE IS THE ONE WHO'S GOING TO

01:25 - 27.620 SEE TO REDACT THE STATEMENT

01:25 - 29.009 AND THEN THE DEFENSE HAS THE

01:25 - 30.409 RIGHT TO OBJECT TO WHETHER THAT

01:25 - 31.759 STATEMENT IS GOING IN THE

01:25 - 32.999 REDACTED FORM IS GOING TO

01:25 - 34.249 VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION

01:25 - 35.849 CLAUSE. THE COURT IS GOING TO

01:25 - 37.729 EVALUATE IT. AND BUT I

01:25 - 39.049 CERTAINLY THINK THE GOVERNMENT

01:25 - 40.659 HAS THAT HAS THE BURDEN

01:25 - 42.159 TO SAY WE WANT TO USE THE

01:25 - 43.539 STATEMENT AND IS IT GOING TO BE

01:25 - 45.020 A 6TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION.

01:25 - 46.689 SO WE'RE GOING TO REDACTED IN

01:25 - 47.570 THE WAY THAT WE THINK

01:25 - 49.769 IS APPROPRIATE. TO ALLOW THIS

01:25 - 50.959 TO AVOID A 6TH AMENDMENT

01:25 - 51.430 BURDEN.

01:25 - 53.989 NOW THAT MISTER WILSON IN THIS

01:25 - 55.849 CASE COULD HAVE OBJECTED AND IN

01:25 - 58.009 SOME INSTANCES SEVERANCE MAY BE

01:25 - 59.289 APPROPRIATE BUT IN MOST

01:25 - 00.919 INSTANCES IT WON'T WHICH WE

01:26 - 03.759 KNOW BECAUSE THE OBVIOUSNESS

01:26 - 05.109 TESTS WHICH THIS COURT IS HE'S

01:26 - 06.460 ALREADY TALKED ABOUT

01:26 - 08.389 HERE AND I WON'T I WON'T HAMMER

01:26 - 09.529 UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS ON

01:26 - 11.569 IT HAS BEEN USED THROUGHOUT

01:26 - 13.519 THIS COUNTRY IN MANY STATES AND

01:26 - 14.799 MANY FEDERAL CIRCUITS FOR

01:26 - 16.709 DECADES WITHOUT CAUSING

01:26 - 19.039 SIGNIFICANT BURDENS ON EITHER

01:26 - 21.039 THE GOVERNMENT OR THE COURT IN

01:26 - 22.299 ASSURING THAT THERE ARE 6TH

01:26 - 23.859 AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS AVAILABLE

01:26 - 25.309 AND IS NOT REQUIRED SIGNIFICANT

01:26 - 26.709 SEVERANCE EITHER LET ME

01:26 - 28.239 CHALLENGE THAT I

01:26 - 30.699 UNDERSTAND IT. THE QUESTION I

01:26 - 32.709 HAVE IS THAT DOES THAT NOT FLY

01:26 - 33.710 IN THE

01:26 - 36.959 THE WHAT RICHARDSON STANDS FOR

01:26 - 38.139 IN THE SENSE THAT THE

01:26 - 39.840 DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT.

01:26 - 42.559 CAN IMPLICATE I SHOULD

01:26 - 44.149 SAY CO-DEFENDANT STATEMENT CAN

01:26 - 46.459 IMPLICATE YOUR CLIENT SHOULD

01:26 - 48.349 THERE BE OTHER EVIDENCE

01:26 - 49.420 INTRODUCED.

01:26 - 52.109 THE UNDERLYING PRECEPT BEING

01:26 - 53.499 THAT WE KNOW THAT THAT

01:26 - 54.949 STATEMENT IS SPEAKING ABOUT

01:26 - 57.749 MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL

01:26 - 59.639 INVOLVED IN. AND THE CRIMINAL

01:26 - 02.000 EPISODE. YOU ARE REMEDIES.

01:27 - 05.239 IS TO CONTORT RICHARD SAID

01:27 - 07.709 SUCH THAT IT ONLY APPEARS TO BE

01:27 - 07.870 A

01:27 - 11.039 SINGULAR CONFESSION PERFORMED

01:27 - 13.399 ONLY BY THE INDIVIDUAL GIVING

01:27 - 14.850 THE STATEMENT TO THE DETECTIVE

01:27 - 16.169 WHICH TO ME

01:27 - 18.709 IS THAT BUT SUCH A MINUTE

01:27 - 19.899 MINUTE DELAY SHOULD IF NOT A

01:27 - 21.849 PERVERSION OF THE EVIDENCE HOW

01:27 - 23.240 CAN WE JUSTIFY THAT.

01:27 - 25.609 SO I'M NOT ASKING THIS COURT

01:27 - 26.659 THAT IN EVERY INSTANCE, THERE

01:27 - 28.269 ARE OTHERS EXIT OTHER EXAMPLES

01:27 - 30.499 WHERE WE OR SOMEONE CAN BE

01:27 - 32.509 USED. IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS

01:27 - 33.400 MAY NOT ALWAYS

01:27 - 35.699 BE APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE OR

01:27 - 37.949 EXCISE THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER

01:27 - 39.670 PERSON AS RICHARDSON SUGGESTED

01:27 - 41.130 A JUSTICE DAUGHERTY

01:27 - 43.339 IN SOME INSTANCES IT MAY

01:27 - 44.609 DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE

01:27 - 46.229 CASE AND WHAT THE STATEMENT IS

01:27 - 48.339 AND WHAT IT SAYS DEPENDS ON IT

01:27 - 49.969 IT'S GOING TO BE CIRCUMSTANCES

01:27 - 52.639 SPECIFIC. IN MANY INSTANCES

01:27 - 54.649 FOR INSTANCE. LET ME LET ME

01:27 - 55.779 GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OUT OF THIS

01:27 - 57.709 STATEMENT, GREAT WHERE I CAN

01:27 - 59.070 TRY TO FIND IT BUT.

01:28 - 04.559 IT WAS THE BROAD STREET LINE,

01:28 - 05.890 I'M NOT SURE WHAT STATION

01:28 - 07.299 THIS COULD BE REDACTED TO SAY

01:28 - 08.959 WHEN ME AND MY FRIEND GOT OFF

01:28 - 10.699 TO INSTEAD SAY WHEN I GOT OFF

01:28 - 13.749 THE SUBWAY. WHEN I GOT OFF THE

01:28 - 15.400 SUBWAY AT TASKER MORE STATION.

01:28 - 17.209 A GROUP OF US BEGAN TO WALK

01:28 - 18.949 TOGETHER SOMEONE FLAGGED DOWN A

01:28 - 20.680 CAB AS WE GOT TO THE SUBWAY

01:28 - 22.569 WHERE YOU CAN USE WORDS THAT

01:28 - 23.550 CREATE GROUPS

01:28 - 25.279 THAT CREATE INDIVIDUAL

01:28 - 26.749 PARTICIPATION WITH MORE THAN

01:28 - 28.279 ONE THESE ARE CERTAINLY

01:28 - 29.719 VALUABLE AND APPROPRIATE

01:28 - 31.639 REDACTIONS NOW THIS IS JUST MY

01:28 - 32.979 SUGGESTION, THE GOVERNMENT MAY

01:28 - 33.790 HAVE A DIFFERENT THE

01:28 - 34.430 COMMONWEALTH MAY HAVE A

01:28 - 36.470 DIFFERENT TAKE BUT ALSO

01:28 - 38.509 MISTER WILSON WHO WAS THE

01:28 - 42.080 CONFESSOR WE MAY WELL OBJECT 2.

01:28 - 46.219 YOU ATTEMPTING TO MANIPULATE

01:28 - 47.220 THE STATEMENT.

01:28 - 50.989 TAKE BLAME FROM YOUR CLIENT

01:28 - 51.850 WHICH PLACES IT

01:28 - 53.589 ON HIM WHEN HE GAVE HIS

01:28 - 55.049 STATEMENT HE SAID YOUR CLIENT

01:28 - 57.269 FIRED ALL 3 SHOTS. THE TO THE

01:28 - 58.489 GRAYS THE HEAD OF MONEY AT THE

01:28 - 00.389 SHOULDER. I THINK IS THE CO OF

01:29 - 02.609 PUT THEIR CASE IN THE SHOT THAT

01:29 - 02.900 HIT

01:29 - 04.929 THE SHOULDER CAME FROM MISTER

01:29 - 06.319 WILSON, THE BACK SEAT WHICH HE

01:29 - 07.870 DIDN'T WANT TO CONCEDE WENY

01:29 - 10.060 MADE HIS CONFESSION SO AGAIN

01:29 - 12.269 I THINK JUST THE STARTING POINT

01:29 - 12.430 IS

01:29 - 15.199 WELL TAKEN. WE DON'T DO OUR

01:29 - 17.219 TRIAL COURTS AND THE SERVICE IF

01:29 - 18.749 WE GIVE THEM DIRECTION TO

01:29 - 20.780 SUBSTANTIALLY OLDER STATEMENTS.

01:29 - 24.190 THE KID, THE SANITIZER BRUTON.

01:29 - 26.909 PERHAPS DISTORTING THE MEANING

01:29 - 28.309 VIS-A-VIS THE 2 DEFENDANTS

01:29 - 29.250 STRONGER ARGUMENT

01:29 - 30.250 FOR SEVERANCE.

01:29 - 32.269 AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT

01:29 - 33.769 YOU TRY I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT

01:29 - 35.049 YOU SHOULD INSTRUCT THE TRIAL

01:29 - 37.540 COURTS TO SANITIZE STATEMENT.

01:29 - 38.120 THE ISSUE

01:29 - 39.609 IS THAT AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING

01:29 - 41.509 IS THAT THEY MAY BE REDACTED IN

01:29 - 42.330 THE WAY THAT I THINK IS

01:29 - 44.180 CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE

01:29 - 45.479 THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING AND

01:29 - 47.110 I THINK IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE

01:29 - 48.799 BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE

01:29 - 50.789 VARIOUS THAT THE PERSON WHO 6TH

01:29 - 52.020 AMENDMENT RIGHT IS IMPLICATED.

01:29 - 53.679 THE DEFENDANT WHO STATEMENTS

01:29 - 54.500 BEING INTRODUCED IN THE

01:29 - 55.490 COMMONWEALTH AND THEY'RE GOING

01:29 - 56.909 TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME

01:29 - 58.379 STATEMENT THAT IS AT LEAST

01:29 - 00.199 REASONABLY SATISFACTORY TO THE

01:30 - 01.759 COURT IN THIS PARK IS WHERE YOU

01:30 - 03.169 STAND YOU YOU'RE POINTING TO

01:30 - 04.999 THAT OR WE SEVER SPOT OF THE

01:30 - 06.299 COUNCIL IS IN PART OF THE

01:30 - 08.449 PROBLEM HEARING YOU YOU CAN USE

01:30 - 10.130 THE WORD 3 TIMES STATEMENT.

01:30 - 12.399 THE CO-DEFENDANT STATEMENT, I'M

01:30 - 13.519 A CONFESSION YOU'RE LEARNING

01:30 - 14.679 BUT BUT BUT ISN'T THAT THE

01:30 - 16.340 POINT REALLY BECAUSE

01:30 - 18.969 THIS WAS A STATEMENT BY WEALTH

01:30 - 20.759 AND THAT WAS INTENDED TO IN

01:30 - 22.260 CALLED PATE SOMEONE ELSE.

01:30 - 24.469 THAT'S CORRECT THIS WAS NOT

01:30 - 27.839 REALLY AS MUCH A CONFESSION BY

01:30 - 28.420 HIM

01:30 - 30.849 ANYTHING THAT IT WEIGHS A

01:30 - 33.030 STATEMENT TO IN CO PAY.

01:30 - 37.239 JONES AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO

01:30 - 39.089 CLEARLY BUTTS UP AGAINST 6

01:30 - 40.439 AMENDMENT RIGHTS. I THINK

01:30 - 41.849 THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT

01:30 - 42.960 THERE MAY BE SOME

01:30 - 45.849 CONFESSIONS THAT ARE REALLY

01:30 - 47.939 STATEMENTS THAT MAYBE CAN'T

01:30 - 50.449 BE USED. YEAH, CERTAINLY THE

01:30 - 52.539 DEGREE OF THE ACCUSATION OF

01:30 - 54.189 ANOTHER CO-DEFENDANT IS GOING

01:30 - 56.149 TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND CERTAINLY

01:30 - 56.870 SIGNIFICANT FOR THE

01:30 - 58.380 6TH AMENDMENT PURPOSES.

01:30 - 00.419 WHERE WERE STATEMENT OF AN

01:31 - 01.909 INDIVIDUAL OR CONFESSION OF ONE

01:31 - 03.419 CO-DEFENDANT. HE'S TRYING TO

01:31 - 05.439 EXTRICATE THEMSELVES AND POINTS

01:31 - 07.110 THE FINGER THROUGH ACCUSATION.

01:31 - 09.539 AT ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, IF THAT

01:31 - 10.779 OTHER INDIVIDUAL BECOMES

01:31 - 13.069 OBVIOUSLY THE CO DEFENDING THAT

01:31 - 14.819 IS GOING TO BE A VERY CLEAR

01:31 - 16.599 BRUTON VIOLATION THAT VIOLATES

01:31 - 19.229 RICHARDSON GRAY AND AND PER

01:31 - 20.659 MISSION OR NOT AN OBVIOUS

01:31 - 22.869 SEVERANCE ISSUE IN MANY

01:31 - 24.259 INSTANCES IT WILL IT REALLY

01:31 - 25.829 DEPENDS AGAIN CIRCUMSTANCE.

01:31 - 27.619 PACIFIC AND IF THE COMMONWEALTH

01:31 - 29.369 IN THIS CASE WANTS TO USE

01:31 - 31.819 THIS ACCUSATION. TEXACO PAINT

01:31 - 33.939 WELL WHICH EXPO PETE WILSON AND

01:31 - 36.510 THEN IMPLICATES. MISTER JONES

01:31 - 37.899 I DO THINK IN ORDER TO

01:31 - 39.739 AVOID SEVERANCE THE SEPT THE

01:31 - 40.949 REDACTION WILL HAVE TO BE

01:31 - 42.689 SIGNIFICANT AND I DO THINK

01:31 - 43.340 THAT'S THE

01:31 - 45.359 IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE IT

01:31 - 47.619 DEPENDS ALWAYS ON THE NATURE

01:31 - 48.450 AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF

01:31 - 50.229 THE CASE. THE STATEMENT AS A

01:31 - 52.579 WHOLE WHAT IS BEING ACCUSED BY

01:31 - 54.529 THE BY THE CONFESSOR ARE THEY

01:31 - 55.859 POINTING THE FINGER AT SOMEBODY

01:31 - 57.679 ELSE THAT'S THAT GOES BACK TO

01:31 - 59.479 THE VERY BASIC CONCEPT OF

01:31 - 01.519 BREWTON WHY DO WE HAVE HAVE

01:32 - 03.679 THE RULE WE HAVE THE RULE

01:32 - 05.899 BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE

01:32 - 08.020 DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN ASK A JURY

01:32 - 10.159 WHEN CAN FOR THE PERSON

01:32 - 11.719 STATEMENT A PERSON'S CONFESSION

01:32 - 13.479 IS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AND

01:32 - 15.989 IT POINTS THE FINGER AT

01:32 - 17.959 ANOTHER PERSON TO ASK THE JURY

01:32 - 19.970 TO ONE CREDIT. THE STATEMENT

01:32 - 22.229 AGAINST THE CONFESSOR BUT THEN

01:32 - 23.760 FUNDAMENTALLY IGNORE

01:32 - 25.169 THE RELIABILITY OF CREDIBILITY

01:32 - 26.709 THAT STATEMENT WHEN IT ACCUSES

01:32 - 29.079 SOMEBODY ELSE. AND THAT IMPROVE

01:32 - 30.140 AND SAID WE CAN'T

01:32 - 32.499 TRUST THE LEGAL FICTION THAT

01:32 - 34.150 JURIES ARE ABLE TO DO BOTH

01:32 - 35.499 ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT STATEMENT

01:32 - 37.309 IS HOW ARE FULLY INCRIMINATING

01:32 - 38.489 AS THE WORDS OF BREWTON AND

01:32 - 39.799 REPEATED AND RICHARD STINGRAY

01:32 - 40.800 HAVE STOOD.

01:32 - 43.099 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE

01:32 - 44.100 YEAR HONORS.

01:32 - 57.629 MAY PLEASE THE COURT MY NAME

01:32 - 59.079 SHAWN BALDWIN REPRESENTING THE

01:32 - 59.690 COMMONWEALTH IS

01:32 - 00.690 A FELONY.

01:33 - 02.649 I'M EXCITED TO ARGUE BEFORE

01:33 - 04.149 THIS COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME

01:33 - 05.729 AND TYPICALLY IN THE SPECIAL

01:33 - 07.869 LOCATION. AT THE

01:33 - 08.880 RISK OF.

01:33 - 10.710 NOT SAYING THE SAME THING.

01:33 - 13.179 THE LAST 2 FOLKS THAT I WILL

01:33 - 14.929 SAY THAT I'M BREAKING MY

01:33 - 16.470 ARGUMENT DOWN IN THE 2 POINTS.

01:33 - 18.259 FIRST THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT

01:33 - 20.029 TRAVERS TO THE EXTENT IT

01:33 - 21.590 CREATES A BRIGHT LINE RULE.

01:33 - 23.649 IT SHOULD BE OVERRULED AND

01:33 - 25.319 SECOND. I WOULD ARGUE THAT

01:33 - 26.809 THERE WAS IN FACT HARMLESS

01:33 - 28.319 ERROR IN THIS CASE BEYOND A

01:33 - 29.320 REASONABLE DOUBT.

01:33 - 31.849 YOU ALREADY HEARD AS A SAID

01:33 - 34.019 ESPECIALLY FROM THE DEFENSE BAR

01:33 - 35.819 ABOUT HOW IN THIS

01:33 - 37.569 CASE THE REDACTION WAS AN

01:33 - 39.219 ARTFULLY DONE AND IT WAS

01:33 - 42.669 INSUFFICIENT TO WE DEFENDANT

01:33 - 44.209 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND YOU'LL

01:33 - 45.269 HEAR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH WE

01:33 - 47.619 WOULD AGREE. IN THIS CASE, I'M

01:33 - 50.579 NOT SAYING THAT REDACTION IS

01:33 - 53.019 NEVER APPROPRIATE BUT WHAT I

01:33 - 54.639 WOULD URGE THE COURT TO DO IS

01:33 - 57.339 TO YOU KNOW CLARIFY TRAVERS IN

01:33 - 58.730 MAKING A CASE BY CASE

01:33 - 01.869 ANALYSIS ON YOU KNOW ALLOW THE

01:34 - 03.569 TRIAL COURT ON EACH STATEMENT

01:34 - 04.579 TO MAKE A CASE BY CASE

01:34 - 06.209 ANALYSIS. RATHER THAN THE

01:34 - 08.459 CURRENT TREND WHICH IS TO SAY

01:34 - 08.940 HEY WAS

01:34 - 11.589 THEIR REACTION WAS THERE A

01:34 - 13.590 LIMIT A JURY INSTRUCTION IF SO

01:34 - 14.960 IT WAS NEVER VIOLENT.

01:34 - 16.529 I THINK THAT THAT'S WRONG OR

01:34 - 17.739 WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLARIFY

01:34 - 19.229 TRAVERS WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT

01:34 - 20.610 WANTED TO TELL US WHY THIS IS.

01:34 - 23.319 HARMLESS AIR BECAUSE IT'S NOT

01:34 - 24.589 THE ARGUMENT THAT IT'S NOT WAS

01:34 - 25.590 PRETTY PERSUASIVE.

01:34 - 28.019 SURE THE THE REASON THIS IS OUR

01:34 - 29.959 LIST THERE IS BECAUSE AND I'LL

01:34 - 31.899 GIVE YOU THIS COURTS DEFINITION

01:34 - 33.279 OF HARMLESS ERROR AND FROM

01:34 - 35.139 LOCAL MERCK MEN WHERE IS THAT

01:34 - 36.140 THE ERROR.

01:34 - 38.089 AN AIR WE DEEM HARMLESS AT THE

01:34 - 39.139 AREA DID NOT PRESIDENT'S

01:34 - 40.519 DEFENDANT OR THE PRESIDENT'S

01:34 - 41.520 WAS THE MINIMUM US

01:34 - 43.739 OR THEIR ROLE IS LIMITED

01:34 - 45.259 EVIDENCE WAS MERELY COMMUTE TO

01:34 - 45.980 THE VOTER AND SAY

01:34 - 47.169 THAT EVIDENCE WHICH WAS

01:34 - 48.599 SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE

01:34 - 49.100 ERRONEOUS

01:34 - 51.099 LIMITED EVIDENCE OR THE

01:34 - 52.629 PROPERLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE AND

01:34 - 54.040 CONTROVERSY EVIDENCE OF GUILT

01:34 - 55.330 WAS SO OVERWHELMING

01:34 - 57.289 AND THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT WAS

01:34 - 59.220 SO SIGNIFICANT BY COMPARISON

01:34 - 00.809 THAT FEAR COULD NOT CONTRIBUTE

01:35 - 02.159 TO THE VERDICT AND I WOULD SAY

01:35 - 04.839 ALL 3 APPLY HERE. ANY AIR WAS

01:35 - 05.140 THEM IN

01:35 - 07.339 A MISS BECAUSE ANYTHING IN

01:35 - 08.969 COVID STORY FROM THE STATEMENTS

01:35 - 11.349 OR MIGHT OFFEND WAS PROVED WITH

01:35 - 13.389 OTHER EVIDENCE YOU HAVE NOT

01:35 - 15.209 ONLY THE VICTIMS IN COURT

01:35 - 16.449 IDENTIFICATION, YOU KNOW THE

01:35 - 17.020 VICTIMS,

01:35 - 19.110 PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION.

01:35 - 21.829 WE IDENTIFIED THE TIME STAMP

01:35 - 23.769 SET THE PHOTO THAT SHOWS TIME

01:35 - 25.659 AND LOCATION WHICH CORROBORATE

01:35 - 27.349 THE STORY OF WHERE WE THINK

01:35 - 28.350 THESE FOLKS UP

01:35 - 29.749 YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT'S DNA

01:35 - 30.909 INSIDE THE FRONT PASSENGER

01:35 - 33.669 DOOR HANDLE RIGHT WHERE RIGHT

01:35 - 35.190 WITH THE VICTIM SAID HE WAS.

01:35 - 37.559 AND THEN YOU KNOW THE MEDICAL

01:35 - 39.780 RECORDS THAT ALSO SEEN TOO.

01:35 - 43.669 SAY THE SAME THING AS THE

01:35 - 44.819 VICTIM STATEMENT AND THAT HE

01:35 - 44.960 HAD

01:35 - 47.099 A LACERATION TO HIS FRONT NOSE

01:35 - 49.929 TO HIS EAR THOSE LACERATIONS

01:35 - 52.199 WERE CAUSED BY A BULLET IS

01:35 - 53.779 OPPOSED THAT HITTING HIS HEAD

01:35 - 54.780 ON THE STEERING WHEEL.

01:35 - 56.999 THAT'S NOT IN MEDICAL RECORDS

01:35 - 58.390 ARE EVER I THINK

01:35 - 59.889 IT'S A REASONABLE

01:35 - 01.139 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WILL

01:36 - 02.929 DEPART WHEN COMBINED WITH THE

01:36 - 04.479 DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM'S

01:36 - 05.960 TESTIMONY THAT I THINK

01:36 - 08.439 RELATIVELY PERSUASIVE ACCOUNT

01:36 - 09.469 IN LIGHT OF ALL THE EVENTS

01:36 - 10.070 COUNSELED THAT

01:36 - 12.219 THIS COURT. GRANT ALA CONDOR ON

01:36 - 13.529 THE HARMLESS OR QUESTION ARE

01:36 - 14.530 JUST ON THE BRITISH.

01:36 - 17.510 ALI

01:36 - 19.609 CARTER ON THE BROOM ISSUE,

01:36 - 21.989 HOWEVER I DO THINK WHAT IS PART

01:36 - 23.109 OF THE OTHER I THINK THE BURDEN

01:36 - 25.119 ISSUE THE BRUCE S IT'S KIND OF

01:36 - 27.139 A TWO-PART TEST FIRST HAS BEEN

01:36 - 28.460 A VIOLATION OCCUR.

01:36 - 30.349 SECOND IS IF IT OCCURRED WAS

01:36 - 31.530 THE RARE HARMLESS.

01:36 - 34.659 SO I WOULD SAY THAT YOU CAN'T

01:36 - 36.119 REALLY HAVE ONE WITH THE OTHER

01:36 - 36.330 THAT

01:36 - 38.199 THE REASON TO YOUR EARLIER

01:36 - 40.189 QUESTION WHY THE SPIRIT COURT

01:36 - 42.009 MAY NOT WE HAVE SPOKEN

01:36 - 43.450 SPECIFICALLY TO HARM US THERE.

01:36 - 44.110 IT'S BECAUSE

01:36 - 45.389 THEY'RE ALREADY FOUND PART ONE

01:36 - 46.709 OF THE TEST TO BE A NO NO

01:36 - 47.310 VIOLATION.

01:36 - 50.469 WE ASK AND AGAIN WE GET LOTS

01:36 - 52.279 OF CASES READY DOES THE RECORD

01:36 - 53.290 REFLECT HERE.

01:36 - 55.279 THE NUMBER OF BULLETS THAT WERE

01:36 - 56.849 FOUND WITHIN THE CAR OR

01:36 - 58.199 ADJACENT TO WHERE THE INCIDENT

01:36 - 59.699 OCCURRED AND IT DOESN'T AND THE

01:36 - 00.700 RECORD

01:37 - 03.189 THE RECORD DIDN'T FIND THERE

01:37 - 04.190 WERE NO BULLETS FOUND

01:37 - 06.979 THERE WAS DEFINITELY SOME DOUBT

01:37 - 07.530 YOU KNOW

01:37 - 09.569 BECAUSE OF HOW IT HAPPENED, BUT

01:37 - 10.609 IT VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN

01:37 - 11.540 THAT THE WIND WAS OVER THE

01:37 - 13.049 BULLETS FLY OUT WE'RE TALKING

01:37 - 14.929 ABOUT A PASSENGER'S SEAT TO THE

01:37 - 17.009 DRIVER'S SEAT, ALTHOUGH THE

01:37 - 18.229 VICTIM TESTIFIED HE MIGHT

01:37 - 20.089 HAVE BELIEVED. BUT THE WINDOW

01:37 - 22.470 WAS WAS UP BECAUSE IT WAS COLD.

01:37 - 24.119 THAT'S STILL NOT CERTAIN ON THE

01:37 - 26.039 RECORD BUT AND WHAT DOES IT

01:37 - 28.859 DO TO HARMLESS ERROR THAT THE

01:37 - 30.900 VICTIMS. BLOOD

01:37 - 32.929 CAME BACK FOR THE HOSPITAL

01:37 - 33.560 SHOWING UNDER

01:37 - 35.159 THE INFLUENCE. WELL THE THING

01:37 - 36.449 ABOUT THAT YOUR HONOR AND IT

01:37 - 37.529 WASN'T REALLY BROUGHT OUT VERY

01:37 - 39.130 MUCH IN THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

01:37 - 41.280 BUT THERE'S NO YOU KNOW THAT'S

01:37 - 42.559 THAT'S ONLY SOMETHING THAT WAS

01:37 - 44.479 BROUGHT OUT DIRECTLY FROM THE

01:37 - 45.839 MEDICAL RECORDS ITSELF. NO ONE

01:37 - 46.899 TESTIFIED TO THE MEDICAL

01:37 - 48.439 RECORDS. HOWEVER, A THERMAL

01:37 - 49.879 THOROUGH LOOK AT THOSE MEDICAL

01:37 - 51.239 RECORDS. WE'LL ALSO SHOW THAT

01:37 - 53.469 THE HOSPITAL ITSELF ISSUED

01:37 - 55.319 THE VICTIM ACTUALLY CODE ON

01:37 - 57.159 WHICH IS AN OPIATE AND THEY CAN

01:37 - 58.579 SELL THEIR FROM YOU KNOW THERE

01:37 - 00.599 THERE'S NO THAT THOSE OPIOIDS

01:38 - 02.279 WERE IN THE SYSTEM FROM BEFORE

01:38 - 04.099 NOT THE THE VICTIM TESTIFIED HE

01:38 - 05.100 WAS EVEN DRINK.

01:38 - 07.919 YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S NOT

01:38 - 09.169 A FOR LEAVE US A PERSON THAT

01:38 - 10.299 DOESN'T DRINK MIGHT NOT ALSO

01:38 - 11.020 ISSUED THEIR OWN.

01:38 - 12.359 WELL THERE WASN'T ANY

01:38 - 14.509 INDICATION THAT OR MAYBE THERE

01:38 - 15.759 WAS I DIDN'T SEE ANY

01:38 - 17.829 INDICATIONS DEGREE OF OPIATES

01:38 - 18.250 RENDERED

01:38 - 19.550 HIM INTOXICATED.

01:38 - 21.340 I DON'T THINK THAT CAME UP ON

01:38 - 22.639 THE RECORD YOU KNOW WHAT WITH

01:38 - 23.799 THE EXCEPTION OF THE FACT THAT

01:38 - 25.659 THE MEDICAL RECORDS WERE MOVED

01:38 - 27.519 INTO EVIDENCE BUT IT WASN'T

01:38 - 28.659 ACTUALLY EXPLORED DURING A

01:38 - 29.660 DIRECT ACROSS.

01:38 - 33.559 OTHER THAN THAT I WOULD ONLY

01:38 - 34.750 ARGUE FOR THAT.

01:38 - 37.679 THE REASON WE WOULD TAKE THE

01:38 - 39.599 STANCE IS BECAUSE WE ONLY KNOW

01:38 - 41.010 WE WANT TO PROTECT CONVICTIONS

01:38 - 43.599 AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT

01:38 - 45.549 WHEN THESE CASES GO UP PASSED

01:38 - 46.890 THE STATE COURTS OF APPEAL.

01:38 - 48.470 AND THEY GO TO FEDERAL ABS.

01:38 - 49.000 THEY GET

01:38 - 52.939 OVER TURNED. AND FOR EXAMPLE IN

01:38 - 53.999 THE CASE OF WATCHING THE

01:38 - 56.189 SECRETARY RECENTLY JOHNSON, THE

01:38 - 57.849 SECRETARY IN THE

01:38 - 00.279 3RD CIRCUIT. THE LOWER COURT A

01:39 - 01.829 STATE COURT RULED ON THE ON THE

01:39 - 03.519 BASES OF TRAVERS AND IT'S

01:39 - 05.069 WRITTEN THEIR OPINION. BUT HEY

01:39 - 05.940 THEY'RE WAS WORD ACTION THERE

01:39 - 07.179 WAS A LEARNING INSTRUCTION, NO

01:39 - 09.309 VIOLATION WHERE IS IT COMES UP

01:39 - 09.820 ON THE COURT

01:39 - 12.599 15 YEARS LATER AND THE COURT

01:39 - 13.909 SAYS WE'RE SENDING IT BACK TO

01:39 - 14.949 THE TRIAL. SO

01:39 - 17.589 EITHER RETRY OR OR RELEASE OF

01:39 - 18.639 THE PAN AND SO WE HAVE THAT WE

01:39 - 19.420 WANT TO KEEP

01:39 - 21.689 IGNORING IT WITH THE 3RD

01:39 - 23.309 CIRCUIT IS SAYING ABOUT TRAVERS

01:39 - 26.159 IN ITS SUPERIOR COURT PROGENY I

01:39 - 27.160 THINK WE KNOW YOU'RE ON.

01:39 - 29.889 IT SEEMS IT SEEMS THIS COURT'S

01:39 - 31.069 BEEN DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF

01:39 - 32.869 IGNORING. THAT

01:39 - 34.890 3RD CIRCUIT. AUTHORITY.

01:39 - 37.329 NOT THAT WE'RE BOUND BY BUT IT

01:39 - 38.270 IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE DOING A

01:39 - 39.389 PRETTY GOOD JOB OF IGNORING

01:39 - 41.849 IT DOESN'T. I MEAN A GOOD JOB

01:39 - 43.479 AS ROADS AND THE ON IT FOR LIKE

01:39 - 44.510 MY SIGHT.

01:39 - 45.870 THAT'S A TRICK QUESTION.

01:39 - 48.749 WHAT HAS THE GOVERNMENT WILL

01:39 - 50.180 YOU KNOW I CAN SAY WE'VE GOT

01:39 - 51.889 CASES IN OUR FEDERAL A VISIT

01:39 - 53.619 RIGHT NOW THAT ARE PROBABLY YOU

01:39 - 53.820 KNOW

01:39 - 57.009 CASES THAT MIGHT ANOTHER

01:39 - 58.179 ARGUMENT ARE ACTUALLY ABOUT TO

01:39 - 59.459 GET OVERTURNED IN FEDERAL AID

01:39 - 59.570 IS

01:39 - 02.109 RIGHT NOW. SO WE TALK ABOUT YOU

01:40 - 04.030 KNOW THE IDEA OF SEVERANCE

01:40 - 06.100 A STRAIN ON

01:40 - 08.129 JUDICIAL ECONOMY. JUDICIAL

01:40 - 09.750 ECONOMY IS FURTHER STRAIN

01:40 - 11.239 WHEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT 10 TO 15

01:40 - 12.419 YEARS TO THESE WITNESSES ARE

01:40 - 14.409 BACK AVAILABLE AGAIN. THANK YOU

01:40 - 15.410 VERY MUCH. THANK

01:40 - 20.030 SEPARATE ONS CORRECTLY.

01:40 - 40.290 WARNING YEAR

01:40 - 42.359 HONORS ADRIAN JACKIE HEAR FROM

01:40 - 43.419 THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT

01:40 - 44.769 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ARGUING ON

01:40 - 46.009 BEHALF OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

01:40 - 47.629 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION

01:40 - 48.630 HAS M S.

01:40 - 51.469 YOUR HONORS THE RULES OUGHT TO

01:40 - 52.639 BE ADVANCED TODAY BY

01:40 - 54.539 THE DEFENDANT. HE'S AM A KISS

01:40 - 55.739 AND THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

01:40 - 56.879 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THE

01:40 - 58.099 EVIDENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

01:40 - 59.459 AS A WHOLE WHEN DETERMINING

01:40 - 00.350 WHETHER OR NOT A PROVEN

01:41 - 02.799 VIOLATION OCCURRED IS SUCH A

01:41 - 04.509 BROAD AND UNWORKABLE

01:41 - 05.969 INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED

01:41 - 07.639 STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

01:41 - 09.729 THAT BEING BRUTON RICHARDSON

01:41 - 11.309 AND GRAY, AND IT'S NOT

01:41 - 13.260 SUPPORTED BY ANY PRECEDENT

01:41 - 14.869 THAT WILL MAKE VIRTUALLY ALL

01:41 - 16.549 READ ACTIONS EVEN THE MOST

01:41 - 18.700 NEUTRAL REDACTIONS INADMISSIBLE

01:41 - 20.649 AND THIS STORY COUNCIL BUT IT'S

01:41 - 22.899 ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE ISN'T IT

01:41 - 24.150 ISN'T IT YOUR POSITION.

01:41 - 25.290 THAT WE OUGHT

01:41 - 28.629 TO VALIDATE HE'S A SUPERIOR

01:41 - 30.409 COURT CASES WHICH INTERPRET

01:41 - 32.689 TRAVERS TO SAY BASICALLY AS

01:41 - 33.410 LONG AS YOU'VE GOT THE

01:41 - 35.399 INSTRUCTION AND THE NEUTRAL

01:41 - 37.170 PRONOUN YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.

01:41 - 39.929 WAS THAT THE PROBLEM WITH IT

01:41 - 41.489 THAT WE BOXED OURSELVES INTO

01:41 - 41.690 THROUGH

01:41 - 43.929 OUR CASES WE RESPECTFULLY NO

01:41 - 45.649 YOUR HONOR I'M TALKING ABOUT

01:41 - 47.299 THE POSITION NOW THAT THAT THE

01:41 - 48.699 MY POSTING COUNCILS ARE TRYING

01:41 - 49.340 TO ADVANCE.

01:41 - 50.500 AND THAT IS

01:41 - 52.259 LOOKING AT THE RECORD AS A

01:41 - 54.779 WHOLE INCLUDING ALL EVIDENCE OF

01:41 - 56.759 GUILT WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER

01:41 - 58.269 OR NOT THERE WAS A BRUTE

01:41 - 59.110 VIOLATION IN

01:41 - 01.039 THE CASE AND RICHARDSON VERSUS

01:42 - 03.139 MARS EXPRESS LEE SAYS IN NO

01:42 - 04.859 UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT CAN

01:42 - 06.929 TEXTUAL IMPLICATION SHOULD BE

01:42 - 09.019 REJECTED YOU LOOK AT THE FACE

01:42 - 10.689 OF THE STATEMENT ITSELF AND

01:42 - 11.999 WHETHER PERHAPS THERE'S ANY

01:42 - 14.149 OTHER KNOCK US EVIDENCE AT

01:42 - 15.579 TRIAL THAT COULD LINK THE

01:42 - 17.539 DEFENDANT TO THE STATEMENT BUT

01:42 - 19.750 NOT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OF GUILT

01:42 - 22.159 AND THE POSITION IN ADVANCE BY

01:42 - 23.710 OPPOSING COUNSEL IN THIS CASE,

01:42 - 25.649 WHAT ESSENTIALLY I MEAN THAT WE

01:42 - 27.509 HAVE TO ALWAYS HAVE SEPARATE

01:42 - 28.819 TRIALS FOR JOINT DEFENDANTS

01:42 - 29.150 WHEN THERE'S A

01:42 - 31.489 CO DEFENDANT OR WE RUN THE RISK

01:42 - 32.959 OF THE COMMONWEALTH NEVER BE

01:42 - 33.520 ABLE TO

01:42 - 35.529 USE A STATEMENT OF A CO

01:42 - 36.699 DEFENDANT CAMPS LIKE IT'S THE

01:42 - 37.890 QUESTION THOUGH IS IS.

01:42 - 39.050 PUTTING ASIDE THE

01:42 - 40.730 SUBSTITUTION OF PRONOUNS

01:42 - 42.549 YOU'RE ASKING US TO SORT OF

01:42 - 44.079 IGNORE EVERY OTHER VIRTUALLY

01:42 - 46.730 EVERY OTHER. IDENTIFYING.

01:42 - 49.229 THAT MAY BE IN THE STATEMENT OR

01:42 - 50.849 THE CONFESSION, WHATEVER

01:42 - 53.179 HAPPENS TO BE THAT THAT COULD

01:42 - 55.150 GET TO THAT THAT IS NOT A NAME

01:42 - 56.310 FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW

01:42 - 59.139 MY FRIEND SITTING NEXT TO

01:42 - 01.459 ME THAT DAY WHO HAD A 4 DOOR ON

01:43 - 03.659 AN ASCOT AND THEN SOMEONE COMES

01:43 - 05.939 IN. AFTERWARDS AND SAID YEAH I

01:43 - 07.569 SAW THAT PERSON AT THE SCENE OF

01:43 - 08.989 THE CRIME HE WAS WEARING A

01:43 - 11.899 FEDORA AND AN ASCOT ISN'T ARE

01:43 - 13.130 YOU SAYING THAT THAT'S FINE.

01:43 - 14.899 NO YOUR HONOR I'M NOT I'M

01:43 - 16.959 SAYING THE LANGUAGE MY FRIEND

01:43 - 18.779 IS FINE BECAUSE THAT'S CLEARLY

01:43 - 20.119 A NEUTRAL WORD ACTION WE'VE

01:43 - 21.779 BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT MY

01:43 - 24.050 FRIEND WHO WORKED WITH ME AT.

01:43 - 27.139 JACK'S FIREHOUSE AND I'M I'M

01:43 - 28.299 I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE JACKS

01:43 - 28.810 FIREHOUSE

01:43 - 30.819 REVEREND A REFERENCE BECAUSE

01:43 - 31.750 I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT

01:43 - 33.599 RELEVANCE OR IMPORTANT WAS IT

01:43 - 35.090 TO THE COMMONWEALTH'S CASE

01:43 - 37.039 FOR PURPOSES OF KEEPING THAT

01:43 - 38.159 IDENTIFYING PIECE OF

01:43 - 40.849 INFORMATION THE STATEMENT AND

01:43 - 42.450 AND ISN'T THAT THE PROBLEM

01:43 - 44.180 ISN'T THAT THE PROBLEM THAT

01:43 - 46.060 THAT IS THE OTHER

01:43 - 48.419 E SUBSTITUTE THE NAME WITH THE

01:43 - 49.849 PRONOUN THAT'S FINE BUT IF

01:43 - 51.409 THERE'S OTHER IDENTIFYING

01:43 - 53.189 INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT

01:43 - 55.639 THAT IMPLICATES A CO-DEFENDANT

01:43 - 56.250 ISN'T THAT THE

01:43 - 58.559 BRUTON PROBLEM THAT POTENTIALLY

01:43 - 00.119 IS A PROVEN PROBLEM AND SO LET

01:44 - 01.779 ME GET TO THE MORE NARROW ISSUE

01:44 - 03.289 IN THIS CASE BUT BEFORE I DO I

01:44 - 04.509 WANT TO SAY THE REASON WHY THE

01:44 - 05.879 PDA BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS

01:44 - 06.200 CASE.

01:44 - 07.669 IS FOR THE MORE BROAD

01:44 - 09.439 INTERPRETATION HERE. THE

01:44 - 10.479 POTENTIAL FAR-REACHING

01:44 - 11.420 RAMIFICATIONS.

01:44 - 13.219 THIS CASE COULD HAVE ON OTHER

01:44 - 15.059 CASES IF IN FACT THIS COURT

01:44 - 16.209 ADOPTS THE CONTEXTUAL

01:44 - 18.520 IMPLICATION APPROACH SOUGHT

01:44 - 20.059 I MY COLLEAGUES HERE AN

01:44 - 20.830 APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN

01:44 - 22.439 EXPRESSLY REJECTED BY THE

01:44 - 23.899 UNITED STATES. I THINK I THINK

01:44 - 25.149 YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE THIS CITY

01:44 - 26.459 OF PHILADELPHIA'S CONCEIVING

01:44 - 27.460 BRITAIN VIOLENCE.

01:44 - 29.849 WHY NOT NOT NO YOUR HONOR

01:44 - 31.019 THAT'S NOT WHY I'M HERE THAT'S

01:44 - 32.299 NOT REAL ISSUE, SO I DON'T GET

01:44 - 33.839 INTO THAT OFFICE IS CONCEDING

01:44 - 34.939 APPROVED BY THAT'S WHY ARE

01:44 - 36.039 ARGUING THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE

01:44 - 37.040 ARGUING.

01:44 - 38.659 WELL, I'M HERE TO ARGUE AGAINST

01:44 - 40.409 A BROAD EXPANSION OF PROVING

01:44 - 41.599 I'M GOOD I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT

01:44 - 43.029 NOW WHAT MY POSITION IS ON THE

01:44 - 44.429 MORE NARROW ISSUE REGARDING

01:44 - 45.480 BRUTON IN THIS CASE.

01:44 - 49.039 WE CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN

01:44 - 50.219 THAT OUR POSITION IS THAT THERE

01:44 - 51.220 WAS AN ERROR HERE IT WAS A

01:44 - 52.469 HARMLESS ERROR AND THEN WE

01:44 - 53.899 CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THAT THE

01:44 - 55.219 FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION BEFORE

01:44 - 56.989 THIS COURT WHETHER OR NOT WE

01:44 - 58.149 SHOULD ENDORSE THIS BROAD

01:44 - 59.580 INTERPRETATION OF PROVEN.

01:45 - 01.839 IS VIABLE AND WE CONTINUE TO

01:45 - 03.370 MAINTAIN THAT IS NOT

01:45 - 05.549 BUT ON BEHALF OF

01:45 - 08.199 THE PDA WE DO NOT NOW HAVE A

01:45 - 10.269 DEFINITIVE POSITION ON WHETHER

01:45 - 12.360 THERE WAS AN ALLEGED BRUTON AIR

01:45 - 13.560 IN THIS CASE

01:45 - 15.629 BEYOND RECOGNIZING THE

01:45 - 16.869 DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE

01:45 - 18.740 REDACTION WITH NEAR MY FRIEND

01:45 - 19.939 WHICH WE HAVE WHICH I WOULD

01:45 - 21.469 SUBMIT NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT

01:45 - 23.280 THAT WAS IN FACT CORRECT.

01:45 - 25.019 BUT COUPLING THAT WITH THE

01:45 - 26.889 ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WHO I

01:45 - 28.439 WORKED AT JACK'S FIREHOUSE WITH

01:45 - 29.719 OR MY CO-WORKER AT JACK'S

01:45 - 32.469 FIREHOUSE THAT LANGUAGE IS

01:45 - 34.009 MORE SPECIFIC AND THAT'S

01:45 - 35.769 MORE PROBLEMATIC AND THAT COULD

01:45 - 38.059 VERY WELL BE UPROOTED VIOLATION

01:45 - 39.189 THAT WOULD FALL RIGHT IN LINE

01:45 - 40.620 WITH RICHARDSON CORRECT

01:45 - 43.919 ANYTHING IS SHARING WITH THE

01:45 - 45.939 PERSON'S EXISTENCE. I BELIEVE

01:45 - 47.059 THE EXACT LANGUAGE FROM

01:45 - 48.130 RICHARDSON IS.

01:45 - 49.980 WE HOLD THAT THE

01:45 - 51.249 CONFRONTATION CLAUSE NOT

01:45 - 52.599 VIOLATED BY THE ADMISSION OF

01:45 - 54.210 THE CO-DEFENDANTS CONFESSION

01:45 - 55.920 WITH THE PROP NO THAT'S NOT.

01:45 - 58.659 WHEN THE CONFESSION IS REDACTED

01:45 - 59.929 TO ELIMINATE NOT ONLY THE

01:45 - 01.369 DEFENDANT'S NAME, BUT ANY

01:46 - 02.930 REFERENCE TO HIS OR HER

01:46 - 05.399 EXISTENCE. SO THE QUESTION

01:46 - 06.579 BECOMES IN THIS

01:46 - 09.339 PARTICULAR CASE. THE REFERENCES

01:46 - 11.140 TO THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT.

01:46 - 12.940 HOW WOULD WANT TO

01:46 - 14.979 HANDLE THAT WERE WHAT IS YOUR

01:46 - 16.439 RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COURT

01:46 - 18.069 HAS TO HANDLE THAT TRYING TO

01:46 - 18.640 COMPLY

01:46 - 21.149 WITH BRUTON YET UNDERSTANDING

01:46 - 22.899 THE RICHARDSON IMPLICATION

01:46 - 24.450 WHICH SEEMS TO BE BROADER.

01:46 - 26.909 NOW THE WAY I AGREE WITH YOU IS

01:46 - 28.149 THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE WITH

01:46 - 30.409 THE CONTACTS. ALL

01:46 - 32.009 THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BUT THE

01:46 - 33.419 BREW LET'S JUST LOOK AT THE

01:46 - 34.170 STATEMENT ON

01:46 - 38.159 ITS FACE. OK, HOW IS IT NOT 1,

01:46 - 39.619 6, AMENDMENT ARE ALL ARTICLE

01:46 - 42.339 1, 9, IF IN FACT WE

01:46 - 45.050 ARE ALLOWING INFORMATION.

01:46 - 49.669 THAT TRULY PINPOINTS WHO THAT

01:46 - 52.150 PERSON IS AND HOW THEY EXIST

01:46 - 54.569 AKA RICHARDSON. WELL EVEN

01:46 - 55.689 MY QUESTION, YES, YOUR HONOR

01:46 - 56.849 THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE ACTUALLY

01:46 - 59.109 PINPOINTING WHO THAT PERSON IS

01:46 - 00.269 IS WITH THE COUPLING OF THE

01:47 - 00.850 LANGUAGE.

01:47 - 02.619 MY CO-WORKER AT JACK'S

01:47 - 04.159 FIREHOUSE AND THE WAY TO

01:47 - 05.629 PERHAPS GET AROUND THAT PERHAPS

01:47 - 06.440 THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN

01:47 - 08.020 THIS CASE IS TO JUST

01:47 - 09.429 TAKE OUT THAT LINE WHICH THE

01:47 - 10.489 PERSON I WORK TO JACK'S

01:47 - 11.899 FIREHOUSE WITH AND JUST KEEP MY

01:47 - 13.159 FRIEND IN THERE BECAUSE THAT

01:47 - 14.239 WOULD RETAIN THE NARRATIVE

01:47 - 15.769 INTEGRITY OF THE STATEMENT AND

01:47 - 17.119 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

01:47 - 17.720 CASES AND

01:47 - 19.709 THIS COURT HOLD IF YOU HAVE A

01:47 - 21.529 NEUTRAL READ ACTION AS LONG AS

01:47 - 22.490 YOU'RE EATING AND IF YOU READ

01:47 - 23.759 ACTING THINGS AS LONG AS YOU'RE

01:47 - 25.139 RETAINING THE NARRATIVE

01:47 - 26.679 INTEGRITY OF THE STATEMENT AND

01:47 - 27.999 THAT SHOULD PASS MUSTER UNDER

01:47 - 29.009 THE 6TH AMENDMENT THAT WOULD

01:47 - 30.999 HAVE BEEN BUT I THINK IN OUR

01:47 - 34.749 QUEST TO PROTECT. THE 6TH

01:47 - 36.130 AMENDMENT ARE WE NOT

01:47 - 39.259 MANIPULATING EVIDENCE AND ITS

01:47 - 41.739 INTRODUCTION WHICH MISLEAD

01:47 - 43.819 THE JURY EVEN THOUGH IT MAY

01:47 - 45.390 PROTECT SOMEONE'S

01:47 - 48.889 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT. HOW TO AND

01:47 - 50.789 HAVE SILENCED SOMETIMES WE

01:47 - 52.130 WOULD BE MANIPULATING EVIDENCE

01:47 - 53.709 FOR INSTANCE IF WE WERE IF THE

01:47 - 55.019 DEFENDANT KEPT COMING BACK AND

01:47 - 56.259 SAY NO YOU NEED TO TAKE OUT

01:47 - 57.379 THIS YOU NEED TO TAKE OUT MY

01:47 - 58.739 FRIEND. WELL NO WE WOULDN'T

01:47 - 59.300 TAKE OUT MY

01:47 - 00.939 FRIEND BECAUSE THEIR NUMBER ONE

01:48 - 02.379 THERE GOES OUR IT'S OUR PART OF

01:48 - 04.399 OUR CONSPIRACY ARGUMENT THAT HE

01:48 - 05.519 COMMITTED A CRIME WITH

01:48 - 07.509 SOMEONE ELSE. SO YOU HAVE TO

01:48 - 08.809 LOOK AT IT ON A CASE BY CASE

01:48 - 10.109 BASIS. WHAT IN FACT CAN BE

01:48 - 11.459 TAKEN OUT OF THE STATEMENT IN

01:48 - 12.669 THE STATEMENT IT'S SIMPLE TO

01:48 - 13.670 JUST TAKE AND I THINK THERE WAS

01:48 - 15.099 JUST ONE REFERENCE OR MAYBE 2

01:48 - 15.670 REFERENCES TO

01:48 - 17.329 JACK'S FIREHOUSE IF THAT WOULD

01:48 - 18.739 HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT THAT WOULD

01:48 - 19.869 HAVE BEEN FINE BECAUSE MY

01:48 - 21.260 FRIEND IN AND OF ITSELF

01:48 - 22.749 COULD BE INNUMERABLE PEOPLE IN

01:48 - 24.609 FACT WAS MISS CHOPPY THAT THERE

01:48 - 25.290 WAS ALSO A

01:48 - 27.309 REFERENCE TO THEM BEING

01:48 - 28.959 CO-WORKERS AND FRIENDS AT

01:48 - 31.290 JACK'S FIREHOUSE BY THEIR BOSS.

01:48 - 33.439 IN SEPARATE TESTIMONY WHICH

01:48 - 34.060 CAME IN RIGHT

01:48 - 36.099 BEFORE THE THE STATEMENT CAME

01:48 - 38.429 IN RIGHT HERE ON I CAN ADD HIS

01:48 - 39.949 TESTIMONY AND I DON'T THINK

01:48 - 41.379 WHETHER IT CAME IN BEFORE THIS

01:48 - 42.610 I DON'T THINK THIS PERMANENT

01:48 - 44.809 PURPOSEFUL PLACEMENT REALLY

01:48 - 45.919 HAD ANY BEARING AND I KNOW

01:48 - 47.259 THERE'S SOME 3RD CIRCUIT CASES

01:48 - 48.549 AND PERHAPS A SUPREME COURT

01:48 - 50.439 CASE THAT SAYS EVEN IF THE

01:48 - 52.489 CONFESSION WAS THE FIRST THING

01:48 - 53.859 IN EVIDENCE AND YOU CAN TELL

01:48 - 54.170 THAT IT WAS

01:48 - 55.859 THAT PERSON. BUT I THINK THAT'S

01:48 - 57.339 JUST FORM OVER SUBSTANCE EVEN

01:48 - 58.930 IF THAT TESTIMONY FROM THE BOSS

01:48 - 00.599 OF JAX FIREPLACE WOULD HAVE

01:49 - 01.600 COME IN LATER

01:49 - 03.379 TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WOULD

01:49 - 05.119 IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT BASED ON

01:49 - 06.939 THE JACKS FIREHOUSE LANGUAGE

01:49 - 08.749 BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT ACTUAL

01:49 - 10.630 IMPLICATION BECAUSE THAT'S NOT

01:49 - 12.029 TALKING ABOUT ANY OTHER

01:49 - 13.370 EVIDENCE OF GUILT

01:49 - 14.430 AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANT

01:49 - 16.640 DISTINCTION FOR IN IMPLICATION

01:49 - 18.900 TO APPLY OR TO NOT APPLY

01:49 - 20.690 CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATION MEANS

01:49 - 22.479 EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND THE

01:49 - 22.810 REASON

01:49 - 25.209 WHY THE IS NO NO IT'S THE

01:49 - 26.859 REASON WHY THE FRIEND LANGUAGE

01:49 - 28.769 IS CLEARLY OKAY NUMBER ONE

01:49 - 30.509 BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY NEUTRAL IT

01:49 - 31.779 COULD BE ONE OF ANY NUMBER OF

01:49 - 33.760 PEOPLE AND NUMBER 2.

01:49 - 35.189 ALTHOUGH WE LEARNED THE

01:49 - 36.729 DEFENDANT IS THE FRIEND BY THE

01:49 - 38.620 OWNER OF JACK'S FIREHOUSE

01:49 - 40.759 WITH THAT THAT DOESN'T

01:49 - 42.729 NECESSARILY MEAN THIS IS THE

01:49 - 43.829 PARTICULAR FRIEND, AN ISSUE

01:49 - 44.869 THERE COULD BE MANY FRIENDS,

01:49 - 46.269 IT'S NOT TILL THE END OF TRIAL

01:49 - 47.399 WHEN YOU LEARN ABOUT ALL THE

01:49 - 48.740 OTHER EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

01:49 - 50.699 THEN YOU SAY HEY WELL I THINK

01:49 - 51.810 THIS DEFENDANT THIS

01:49 - 53.509 DEFENDANT IS THE FRIEND AND

01:49 - 55.149 THAT'S CONTRACTUAL IMPLICATION

01:49 - 56.749 AND THAT IS NOT ALLOWED BY

01:49 - 58.180 RICHARDSON VERSUS MARCH.

01:49 - 00.070 I WANT TO MAKE SURE I

01:50 - 01.179 UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION

01:50 - 01.690 BECAUSE WE'RE GOING

01:50 - 04.039 TO BE IN OUR ULTIMATE OPINION

01:50 - 05.109 ON THIS CASE WE'RE GOING TO BE

01:50 - 07.000 FOCUSED ON OF COURSE.

01:50 - 09.729 THIS THIS DEFENDANT BUT WE'RE

01:50 - 11.169 ALSO GOING TO BE FOCUSED ON THE

01:50 - 12.589 BROADER THE QUESTION OF

01:50 - 15.329 BRITAIN. YOUR SAYING IF I

01:50 - 15.960 UNDERSTAND YOU

01:50 - 19.769 CORRECTLY THAT A MAJORITY OF

01:50 - 21.589 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

01:50 - 24.709 ASSOCIATION COULD NOT REACH A

01:50 - 27.649 DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU

01:50 - 29.960 AGREE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA

01:50 - 32.029 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS POSITION

01:50 - 33.869 THAT THERE WAS NO FOR

01:50 - 36.009 VIOLATION HERE, I'M SORRY THAT

01:50 - 37.619 THERE WAS A BRUTE VIOLATION

01:50 - 38.620 HERE.

01:50 - 40.729 YES, AND I WANT TO CLARIFY WISE

01:50 - 41.690 DO I WANT TO MAKE SURE

01:50 - 43.899 UNDERSTAND IF IT WAS JUST MY

01:50 - 46.739 FRIEND LANGUAGE. I THINK WITH

01:50 - 48.359 THE ASSOCIATION AS A WHOLE WE

01:50 - 49.180 ARE CLEAR IN NO

01:50 - 51.299 UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THAT IS IN

01:50 - 53.769 FACT A PROPER REDACTION IT IS A

01:50 - 54.190 NEUTRAL

01:50 - 55.939 REDACTION NIGHT. IT'S EVEN MORE

01:50 - 57.719 AMORPHOUS AND THE OTHER GUY OR

01:50 - 58.789 SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND EVEN

01:50 - 00.109 PERHAPS THE OTHER GUY THE OTHER

01:51 - 01.979 PERSON, SOMEONE COULD POSSIBLY

01:51 - 02.730 THINK THAT THAT'S AN

01:51 - 03.730 ARTIFICIAL.

01:51 - 06.439 READ ACTION, BUT MY FRIEND

01:51 - 07.819 PEOPLE TALK IN GENERALITIES ALL

01:51 - 09.150 THE TIME SO THAT'S CLEARLY

01:51 - 11.079 NEUTRAL AND I WOULD SUBMIT

01:51 - 11.980 UNDER THE CASE LAW THE

01:51 - 13.769 SUPREME COURT WITH THE UNITED

01:51 - 15.529 STATES THIS AND THIS COURT THAT

01:51 - 16.620 IS SUFFICIENT.

01:51 - 19.089 IT'S ONLY WHEN THAT MY FRIEND

01:51 - 21.519 IS COUPLED WITH THE CO-WORKER

01:51 - 23.769 AT JACK'S FIREHOUSE THAT

01:51 - 25.590 BECOMES PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE

01:51 - 27.070 SEEMINGLY THAT

01:51 - 29.559 TO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES THE

01:51 - 31.559 DEFENDANT GOTCHA SO IF THIS

01:51 - 33.460 COURT WERE 2

01:51 - 35.409 WRITE AN OPINION AND FIND THAT

01:51 - 36.899 THERE WAS IN FACT A BRUTE IN

01:51 - 38.929 VIOLATION. I WOULD ASK THIS

01:51 - 40.419 COURT TO BE CAREFUL AND

01:51 - 42.999 DELINEATE EXACTLY WHY THERE WAS

01:51 - 44.959 A VIOLATION AND IN

01:51 - 48.469 DOING SO AFFIRM THAT THE MINE

01:51 - 48.790 FRIEND

01:51 - 51.929 LANGUAGE WAS INDEED SUFFICIENT

01:51 - 52.890 CAN YOU ENVISION NO

01:51 - 55.429 SCENARIO COUNCIL IN WHICH THE

01:51 - 56.979 KIND OF IN FOR HIS NOT JUST THE

01:51 - 58.349 FACT OF AN INFERENCE BUT THE

01:51 - 59.790 KIND OF AN INFERENCE.

01:52 - 02.099 THAT COULD BE DRAWN IN IN

01:52 - 03.380 SOME HYPOTHETICAL.

01:52 - 06.159 COULD MAKE THAT MY FRIEND

01:52 - 08.479 PROBLEMATIC. IN OTHER WORDS CAN

01:52 - 10.049 YOU JUST ARE YOU ARE YOU

01:52 - 11.849 ARTICULATING FOR US ARE

01:52 - 13.199 ADVOCATING FOR A BRIGHT LINE

01:52 - 15.109 RULE ABOUT MY FRIEND BEING

01:52 - 17.439 SUFFICIENTLY VANILLA IN ALL

01:52 - 18.949 CIRCUMSTANCES, I'M NOT DOING

01:52 - 20.379 THAT ALBRIGHT LAW ALL RULES

01:52 - 21.429 HAVE EXCEPTIONS AND TO THE

01:52 - 24.019 EXTENT. OPPONENTS HEARSAY

01:52 - 24.550 TRAVERS

01:52 - 26.289 ADVOCATES BLACK BRIGHT LINE

01:52 - 27.399 RULE IT DOESN'T END EVEN THE

01:52 - 28.420 3RD CIRCUIT SAYS.

01:52 - 32.019 SUPREME COURT TRAVERS ADVOCATES

01:52 - 34.179 AND NEAR. BRIGHT

01:52 - 35.459 LINE RULE BUT

01:52 - 37.539 ALL RULES HAVE EXCEPTIONS LIKE

01:52 - 38.639 THE GENERAL RULE THAT JURIES

01:52 - 39.560 ARE PRESUMED TO FOLLOW THE

01:52 - 40.629 COURT'S INSTRUCTION THERE'S

01:52 - 42.030 EXTREMELY LIMITED EXCEPTION.

01:52 - 43.240 WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY

01:52 - 45.479 BRUTON SO LET ME LET ME TRY TO

01:52 - 46.590 THINK OF AN EXAMPLE MY

01:52 - 48.850 THAT YOUR ONLY

01:52 - 53.339 THIS THAT IF FOR SOME REASON A

01:52 - 54.859 DEFENDANT IS ON FOR THE

01:52 - 56.009 DEFENDANT IS ON TRIAL

01:52 - 58.139 AND SOMEHOW EVERYONE IS AWARE

01:52 - 59.849 THAT HE'S A WRECK LOOSEN LIVE

01:52 - 01.950 SOMEWHERE. HE HAS

01:53 - 04.689 SOMEHOW IT'S KNOWN THAT HE HAS

01:53 - 07.239 A SINGLE FRONT. NOW BUT

01:53 - 09.079 THE UNABOMBER. SOMETHING

01:53 - 10.809 LIKE THAT. SO IN THAT SITUATION

01:53 - 11.979 AND THAT'S WHY THE RULE IN

01:53 - 13.319 TRAVERSE ISN'T A BRIGHT LINE

01:53 - 14.669 RULE THERE'S ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS

01:53 - 16.059 BUT GENERALLY THE OTHER PERSON

01:53 - 17.229 THE OTHER GUY THE DUDE THE

01:53 - 19.069 FRIEND THAT'S GENERALLY

01:53 - 20.459 UNACCEPTABLE FRASER

01:53 - 23.399 PRONOUN OR WORD TO USE FOR YOU

01:53 - 24.659 THAT I WANT TO BRING YOU BACK

01:53 - 24.780 TO

01:53 - 25.140 WIN IT.

01:53 - 26.909 OPENING STATEMENTS AND SEE IF

01:53 - 27.540 I UNDERSTOOD

01:53 - 30.069 YOU START. I THINK YOU SAID

01:53 - 32.079 THAT ANY VALUE WAITING AND

01:53 - 34.380 REVIVE A SHIFT FROM A STATEMENT

01:53 - 37.249 WE INJECTED TO LOOKING AT ALL

01:53 - 39.199 THE EVIDENCE YET THAT WERE

01:53 - 41.330 PRESENT WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL

01:53 - 43.249 TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE

01:53 - 44.160 STATEMENT

01:53 - 47.739 WAS OBVIOUSLY ABOUT THE DAWN

01:53 - 49.449 TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANTS IS

01:53 - 49.930 THAT RIGHT

01:53 - 52.209 OR WRONG. THAT'S YOUR HONOR.

01:53 - 53.779 RICHARDSON VERSUS MARCH

01:53 - 55.480 EXPRESSLY SAYS.

01:53 - 57.249 THAT THERE CAN BE NO PROOF

01:53 - 59.429 VIOLATION BASED ON CAN TEXTUAL

01:53 - 01.169 IMPLICATION AND CONTEXTUAL

01:54 - 02.879 IMPLICATION IS OTHER EVIDENCE

01:54 - 05.039 OF GUILT BUT WHY DON'T THE

01:54 - 07.289 ONLY REASON YOU HAVE CONCEDED

01:54 - 08.770 ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS HERE

01:54 - 11.379 THAT WE'RE FRIENDS IN JACK'S

01:54 - 12.629 FIREHOUSE IS

01:54 - 14.619 SO PREJUDICIAL IS THAT WE HAVE

01:54 - 15.909 OTHER TESTIMONY FROM OTHER

01:54 - 17.569 PEOPLE THAT THEY BOTH WORKED

01:54 - 19.339 JACK'S FIREHOUSE THEY WERE

01:54 - 20.519 THERE THAT NIGHT THEY LEFT

01:54 - 21.869 TOGETHER THAT NIGHT SO ISN'T

01:54 - 23.089 THAT THE CONVENTIONAL IN

01:54 - 24.669 THAT CASE, THERE'S AN IMPORTANT

01:54 - 25.859 DISTINCTION THERE YOUR HONOR

01:54 - 27.529 BUT LIKE ME THE IMPORTANT

01:54 - 29.160 DISTINCTION IS THE

01:54 - 31.209 OWNER OF JACK'S FIREHOUSE

01:54 - 32.969 TESTIFIED GAVE KNOCK US

01:54 - 35.219 TESTIMONY THAT THESE GUYS WORK

01:54 - 37.820 WITH ME AT JACK'S FIREHOUSE AND

01:54 - 39.040 THAT WAS NOT

01:54 - 41.259 OTHER EVIDENCE OF GUILT THAT'S

01:54 - 43.309 JUST EVIDENCE OF WHERE THESE

01:54 - 45.239 PEOPLE WORKED IT'S ONLY WHEN

01:54 - 47.509 THERE'S EVIDENCE OF GUILT THAT

01:54 - 48.779 LINKS THE DEFENDANT TO THE

01:54 - 49.780 STATEMENT.

01:54 - 51.560 SO I EVEN

01:54 - 52.789 USE EIMERS YOUR HONOR I

01:54 - 54.449 APOLOGIZE, BUT YOU DIDN'T LIKE

01:54 - 56.149 ME TRY I WANT TO MAKE SURE I

01:54 - 57.150 UNDERSTAND THIS.

01:54 - 00.689 THEREFORE WHAT IS THE

01:55 - 02.629 IMPLICATION OF I THINK WAS MISS

01:55 - 04.629 TO HOUSTON THIS TESTIMONY THAT

01:55 - 06.209 THEY BOTH WORKED FOR JACK'S

01:55 - 08.289 FIREHOUSE WELL WE LOOK AT THAT

01:55 - 09.479 IN CONSIDERING WHETHER

01:55 - 11.659 THE STATEMENT. THE BRUINS

01:55 - 13.249 STATEMENT VIOLATES WOULDN'T DO

01:55 - 14.250 NOT LOOK AT THAT.

01:55 - 17.919 WELL THE REIT THE REIT I WOULD

01:55 - 19.059 SUBMIT NOT THAT I WAS A

01:55 - 20.369 PROSECUTOR IN THAT CASE, BUT I

01:55 - 21.629 WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE REASON

01:55 - 22.959 THE PROSECUTOR PUT THAT

01:55 - 24.879 EVIDENCE ON MISTER ESTABLISHED

01:55 - 25.650 THAT THEY WERE FRIENDS AND

01:55 - 26.340 THEIR PART

01:55 - 27.549 THERE FOR YOU'RE GOING TO

01:55 - 28.689 COMMIT A CRIME IF SOMEONE HAS A

01:55 - 29.799 CONSPIRATOR IT'S LIKELY GOING

01:55 - 30.780 TO BE A FRIEND OR SOMEONE YOU

01:55 - 31.690 KNOW SO THAT WAS PROBABLY TO

01:55 - 33.359 ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY. IT WASN'T

01:55 - 34.040 AN END I

01:55 - 35.829 WOULD HOPE AND THINK IT WASN'T

01:55 - 37.809 AN ATTEMPT TO LINK THEM TO THE

01:55 - 40.259 STATEMENT. BUT THE REASON WHY

01:55 - 41.919 SO MY FRIEND IN THERE YOU'RE

01:55 - 42.969 LOOKING AT THE STATEMENT, BUT

01:55 - 44.970 MY FRIEND IS A NEUTRAL PRONOUN

01:55 - 47.519 SO OUR NEUTRAL TERM SO YOU NEED

01:55 - 48.960 NOT GO ANY FURTHER

01:55 - 51.499 AND WAIT WAIT, BUT IF YOU DO

01:55 - 52.979 AND FIND OUT HOW HE'S LINK YOU

01:55 - 54.420 FIND OUT LATER ON AT THE END OF

01:55 - 56.559 HE'S THE FRIEND, BUT YOU ONLY

01:55 - 57.550 LEARNED THAT THROUGH OTHER

01:55 - 58.679 EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S

01:55 - 00.749 GUILT. BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE

01:56 - 02.899 JACKS FIREHOUSE THING YOU LEARN

01:56 - 04.950 THAT THAT'S A SPECIFIC.

01:56 - 07.909 I WANT TO SAY IT'S ANOTHER

01:56 - 09.009 MONIKER FOR THE DEFENDANTS

01:56 - 09.760 NAME, BUT IT'S IT'S

01:56 - 12.749 TOO SPECIFIC TO QUALIFY AS A

01:56 - 14.960 BROAD NEUTRAL REDACTION.

01:56 - 18.739 IT'S LINKED BASED JUST ON THAT

01:56 - 19.150 WHICH IS

01:56 - 20.400 I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S

01:56 - 21.360 EQUIVALENT TO FACIAL

01:56 - 22.749 INCRIMINATION BUT IT KIND OF IS

01:56 - 24.059 IN REGARDS TO JUSTICE WEX

01:56 - 25.559 QUESTION IT'S THE KIND OF

01:56 - 27.009 INFERENCE THAT THE GREAT COURT

01:56 - 28.110 TALKED ABOUT AND THAT'S IT.

01:56 - 30.129 ARGUABLY A POWERFUL IN FRANCE,

01:56 - 31.479 IF YOU'RE YOU'RE TALK, YOURS

01:56 - 33.329 DESCRIBING HIM, SO SPECIFICALLY

01:56 - 35.209 SO I WANTED TO TALK, BUT NO I'M

01:56 - 36.310 SORRY I

01:56 - 38.089 JUST FOLLOWING UP AND CHIEF

01:56 - 39.489 JUSTICE QUESTIONS SO IF YOUR

01:56 - 40.590 POSITION.

01:56 - 41.540 THE FACT

01:56 - 43.870 THAT THE REDACTED STATEMENT

01:56 - 47.290 PERMITTED THE JACKS FIREHOUSE

01:56 - 49.839 INFORMATION COUPLED WITH

01:56 - 52.619 THE OWNER TESTIMONY PRIOR

01:56 - 55.269 TO THAT THAT FALLS WITHIN THE

01:56 - 57.319 RICHARDSON BECAUSE IT'S CAN

01:56 - 59.620 TECH SHIRLEY. IMPLICATING.

01:57 - 02.729 ARE YOU STORE THE NOW NO NO I

01:57 - 04.240 DON'T I DON'T THAT DOESN'T

01:57 - 06.069 FALL WITHIN RICHARDSON BECAUSE

01:57 - 07.329 RICHARD SINCE CONTEXTUAL

01:57 - 09.079 IMPLICATION. KERRY SAYS YOU'RE

01:57 - 10.389 NOT ALLOWED TO USE OTHER

01:57 - 12.189 EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND PERHAPS

01:57 - 13.599 IF I SITES LANGUAGE FROM

01:57 - 15.019 TRAVERSE IT WILL MAKE IT CLEAR

01:57 - 16.020 IN TRAVERSE.

01:57 - 17.839 WHEN THE COURT WAS DISCUSSING

01:57 - 19.150 CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATION.

01:57 - 21.259 IT STATED THAT THE REDACTED

01:57 - 22.649 STATEMENT LIKE THE ONE IN

01:57 - 24.490 RICHARDSON BECAME INCRIMINATING

01:57 - 26.549 ONLY AND I QUOTE THROUGH

01:57 - 28.459 INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE INTRODUCED

01:57 - 29.200 AT TRIAL

01:57 - 30.869 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE

01:57 - 33.589 DEFENDANTS COMPLICITY. SO IT'S

01:57 - 35.129 ONLY WHEN THERE'S INDEPENDENT

01:57 - 36.839 EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL

01:57 - 39.089 THAT ESTABLISHES HIS COMPLICITY

01:57 - 40.199 IF THAT'S WHAT LINKS THE

01:57 - 42.059 DEFENDANT AND THAT'S NOT A

01:57 - 44.029 BRUTAL VIOLATION. BECAUSE

01:57 - 45.560 THAT'S JUST THE ACTUAL CONTENT.

01:57 - 47.189 YES THAT'S THE CONTEXTUAL

01:57 - 49.150 IMPLICATION FERRY AND

01:57 - 50.839 I GUESS IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE

01:57 - 52.269 MOST OF THE CASES THAT TALK

01:57 - 52.530 ABOUT

01:57 - 54.209 CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATION AND

01:57 - 55.539 BEFORE I REALLY DELVED INTO

01:57 - 57.319 THIS AND I JUST RECENTLY LAST

01:57 - 58.509 WEEK SUBMITTED ANOTHER BRITON

01:57 - 59.979 FREE TO THIS COURT IN ANOTHER

01:57 - 01.560 CASE I LOOKED INTO IT FURTHER.

01:58 - 04.989 BUT THE CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATION

01:58 - 06.639 THEORY IN RICHARDSON VERSUS

01:58 - 09.039 MARSH SEEMINGLY WHEN YOU FIRST

01:58 - 10.090 READ IT IT SAYS

01:58 - 11.659 O WELL YOU CAN'T LOOK AT ANY

01:58 - 12.839 OTHER EVIDENCE IF THEY WANT YOU

01:58 - 14.199 TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE RECORD NO

01:58 - 16.039 THAT'S WRONG. WELL YOU CAN LOOK

01:58 - 17.209 AT OTHER EVIDENCE YOU JUST

01:58 - 18.899 CAN'T LOOK AT OTHER

01:58 - 20.779 EVIDENCE OF GUILT BECAUSE IF

01:58 - 22.569 YOU DID OF COURSE THERE'S GOING

01:58 - 23.709 TO BE OTHER EVIDENCE OF GUILT

01:58 - 25.139 FOR THE COMMONWEALTH HAS 2

01:58 - 26.350 DEPENDENTS, THEY'RE THERE

01:58 - 28.009 THEY'RE GOING TO TRIAL WITH ONE

01:58 - 28.380 OF THEM GIVES

01:58 - 30.039 A STATEMENT OF COURSE THERE'S

01:58 - 31.020 GOING TO BE TONS OF OTHER

01:58 - 32.219 EVIDENCE OF GUILT AGAINST THE

01:58 - 33.389 OTHER DEFENDANT BECAUSE WE KNOW

01:58 - 34.909 DARN WELL WE CAN'T USE THAT TO

01:58 - 36.749 CLEAR IT. CO-DEFENDANTS

01:58 - 38.579 TESTIMONY AGAINST OUR DEFENDANT

01:58 - 39.809 SO THERE'S GOING TO BE ABUNDANT

01:58 - 41.329 EVIDENCE SO TO COME IN HERE

01:58 - 43.669 AND SAY OH WELL, THIS DEFENDANT

01:58 - 44.759 IS LINKED TO THE STATEMENT

01:58 - 46.059 BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER EVIDENCE

01:58 - 47.479 THERE SO BY THAT OTHER EVIDENCE

01:58 - 48.470 YOU CAN TELL THAT HE'S MY

01:58 - 49.889 FRIEND. WELL, OF COURSE YOU'RE

01:58 - 51.439 GOING TO TELL THAT THAT BUT

01:58 - 52.970 THAT'S NOT WHAT BRUTON HOLD

01:58 - 54.309 IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO TO

01:58 - 56.389 REMEMBER HERE THAT AND I THINK

01:58 - 58.169 WHAT MY OPPOSING COUNSEL LOSE

01:58 - 00.129 SIGHT OF IS THAT BRUTON IS IN

01:59 - 01.599 LIMITED EXCEPTION TO THE

01:59 - 03.939 GENERAL RULE, THE GENERAL RULE

01:59 - 04.640 IS THAT

01:59 - 06.679 JURIES ARE PRESUMED TO FOLLOW

01:59 - 08.080 THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS

01:59 - 09.419 AND IT'S ONLY IN THE

01:59 - 11.239 RARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A

01:59 - 13.129 DEFENDANT IS DIRECTLY IN POWER

01:59 - 14.639 FULLY INCRIMINATED IN A

01:59 - 16.999 STATEMENT THEN WE CAN NO LONGER

01:59 - 18.620 PRESUME THAT

01:59 - 20.399 THAT PERSON. THE JURY IS

01:59 - 21.449 FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS AND WE

01:59 - 23.009 HAVE TO REMEMBER IN BREWTON THE

01:59 - 24.909 DEFENDANT WAS ACTUALLY NAMED

01:59 - 26.319 THE CO-DEPENDENT SAID ME AND

01:59 - 27.609 BRUTON ARE PERHAPS YOU PREFER

01:59 - 29.199 TO HIS FIRST NAME. SO THAT WAS

01:59 - 30.499 CLEARLY IDENTIFYING THE

01:59 - 31.420 DEFENDANT SO THAT WAS THE

01:59 - 33.139 CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THAT

01:59 - 35.169 CASE WAS INVOLVED HERE. I GET

01:59 - 36.759 IT THERE COULD VERY WELL BE

01:59 - 38.289 UPROOTED VIOLATION WITH THE MY

01:59 - 40.369 JAX FIREHOUSE LANGUAGE BUT THE

01:59 - 40.670 MY

01:59 - 43.319 FRIEND LANGUAGE IS COMPLETELY

01:59 - 45.389 INNOCUOUS IT'S NEUTRAL LANGUAGE

01:59 - 47.519 BY ITSELF BY ITSELF AND IT'S

01:59 - 49.349 ONLY WHEN COUPLED WITH THAT

01:59 - 50.330 OTHER LANGUAGE THAT

01:59 - 52.689 IT'S ARGUABLY A VIOLATION

01:59 - 54.249 COUNCIL COUNCIL FOR SAKE OF

01:59 - 55.489 COMPLETENESS TEACHERS

01:59 - 57.799 ASSOCIATION TAKE A POSITION ON

01:59 - 00.949 THE EFFECT OF ANY OF THE DAY

02:00 - 03.129 YOU PRACTICING HIS READING OF

02:00 - 04.230 THE CONFESSION.

02:00 - 05.789 WITH THE STATEMENT THAT IT

02:00 - 08.050 WEIGHS A REDACTED STATEMENT.

02:00 - 13.539 WELL I THINK IN READING THE

02:00 - 15.239 ONE STATEMENT, I'M NOT SO SURE

02:00 - 16.859 IF HE SAID REDACTED I THINK HE

02:00 - 18.200 MENTIONED THE VERSION.

02:00 - 20.649 PERHAPS THAT WOULD HAVE SOME

02:00 - 22.019 EFFECT ON THE BRITON VIOLATION

02:00 - 23.109 BUT THAT WASN'T RAISED BY THE

02:00 - 24.339 DEFENDANTS IN THIS PARTY WAS

02:00 - 25.030 ONLY RAISED IN THE

02:00 - 26.639 COMMONWEALTH'S BRIEF. SO THAT

02:00 - 27.849 WOULD BE A NEW ARGUMENT THAT

02:00 - 28.350 THE DEFENDANT

02:00 - 29.350 DID IT.

02:00 - 32.199 RECOLLECTION AND ONE 85 WITH

02:00 - 34.459 A NOTE ATTACHED TO MADE LINE 15

02:00 - 35.909 GET YOU OUT THE TYPE VERSION

02:00 - 37.689 THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU BY ME

02:00 - 40.609 ANSWER REDACTED ONE WHEN

02:00 - 41.700 QUESTIONED MART

02:00 - 44.370 WAS IT JUST YET, BUT IT IS THAT

02:00 - 46.799 FEMALE CO-DEFENDANT STATEMENT

02:00 - 48.579 OR IS THAT WILSON STATEMENT, I

02:00 - 49.929 KNOW ONE OF THEM SAID REDACTED

02:00 - 51.360 YES AND AND THE OTHER ONE.

02:00 - 53.029 SAID YOU HAVE THAT WHATEVER

02:00 - 55.600 VERSION. MISTER WELL, OKAY.

02:00 - 57.849 BUT OUR POSITION BUT I WOULD

02:00 - 58.710 SUBMIT THAT THAT WOULD BE

02:00 - 00.129 WEIGHT BECAUSE IT WASN'T RAISED

02:01 - 01.149 IN ANY OF THE BRIEFING HERE

02:01 - 02.359 EXCEPT IN THE COMMONWEALTH

02:01 - 03.360 SPREE.

02:01 - 05.449 SO I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN'T

02:01 - 06.819 RAISE NEW THEORIES ON APPEAL SO

02:01 - 07.889 TO THE EXTENT THE DEFENDANTS

02:01 - 09.249 WOULD BE RAISING THAT NOW I

02:01 - 10.650 WOULD SUBMIT THAT THAT WOULD BE

02:01 - 12.499 PART AND PARCEL OF THE PRUDENT

02:01 - 15.009 CLAIM WHAT YOUR WHAT YOUR WHICH

02:01 - 16.609 YOU'RE ASSOCIATIONS POSITION ON

02:01 - 17.610 IT.

02:01 - 20.289 I'M COUNTING. WE DON'T FIND

02:01 - 21.290 WAIVER.

02:01 - 23.860 I MEAN YOU HAVE ANY

02:01 - 25.509 ASSOCIATION WHO WON'T TAKE A

02:01 - 27.339 POSITION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AS

02:01 - 28.429 TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A

02:01 - 29.980 BRUTAL VIOLATION AND.

02:01 - 32.199 IF THIS IS AN ADDED FACTOR

02:01 - 33.519 THAT THE TESTIMONY BY THE

02:01 - 34.939 DEFENDANT WAYS THIS IS A

02:01 - 36.110 REDACTED STATEMENT.

02:01 - 39.559 YOUR FOR YOUR HONOR TO BE CLEAR

02:01 - 41.009 WE'RE NOT TAKING POSITION IT'S

02:01 - 41.950 OUR POSITION THAT REASONABLE

02:01 - 43.020 MINDS TOO GREAT.

02:01 - 44.439 COULD DISAGREE AND IN FACT

02:01 - 45.969 REASONABLE MINDS DO JUST

02:01 - 47.839 DISAGREE AND SAY I'M NOT TAKING

02:01 - 49.179 A POSITION ON THE BROOM

02:01 - 50.350 VIBRATION CRACKED.

02:01 - 52.289 YOU'RE CONCERNED YOUR CONCERN

02:01 - 53.609 IS IS THIS COURT ISSUING A

02:01 - 54.809 DECISION THAT SAYS NEUTRAL

02:01 - 56.080 PRONOUNS ARE NO LONGER GOOD.

02:01 - 58.700 MY FRIEND IS NOT GOOD.

02:02 - 02.779 THAT'S THE NARROW ISSUE ARE

02:02 - 04.859 BROADER CONCERN AS IF THIS

02:02 - 07.269 COURT ADOPT A RULE THAT

02:02 - 09.199 ALLOWS FOR CAN TECH STILL

02:02 - 10.729 IMPLICATION WHICH THE 3RD

02:02 - 11.200 CIRCUIT

02:02 - 13.229 REPEATEDLY DOES. BUT IT'S NOT

02:02 - 15.009 SANCTIONED BY THE UNITED STATES

02:02 - 16.109 OR YOU HAVE WHAT ABOUT I

02:02 - 17.110 THOUGHT I THOUGHT

02:02 - 19.360 PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

02:02 - 21.619 ATTORNEY'S ARGUMENT ON BABY US

02:02 - 22.789 CONCERNS WAS AN INTERESTING

02:02 - 24.429 CONCERNED YOU NOT THE DISTRICT

02:02 - 25.799 ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION NOT SHARE

02:02 - 25.870 THE

02:02 - 27.939 CONCERN THAT IF THE 3RD CIRCUIT

02:02 - 29.249 HAS ADOPTED CAN TOUCH WILL

02:02 - 30.649 IMPLICATION THAT THESE CASES

02:02 - 30.920 ARE JUST

02:02 - 32.339 GOING TO WE'LL GO THROUGH HERE,

02:02 - 33.689 BUT THEY GO THROUGH FEDERAL ABS

02:02 - 34.690 AND GET REVERSED ANYWAY.

02:02 - 37.179 I DON'T SHARE THE CONCERN

02:02 - 38.509 BECAUSE I'M VERY WELL AWARE

02:02 - 39.779 THAT WE HAVE NUMEROUS CASES IN

02:02 - 41.199 FACT I HAVE WON THE FIRST

02:02 - 42.949 BATTLE IN THE 30'S, THE AND

02:02 - 43.370 HEALTH.

02:02 - 45.079 HOPEFULLY ONE OF THESE DAYS,

02:02 - 46.479 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

02:02 - 48.439 IS GOING TO GRANT START ON ONE

02:02 - 50.160 OF THESE CASES, BUT I WILL SAY

02:02 - 51.909 THIS COURT IS NOT BEHOLDEN TO

02:02 - 53.709 THE 3RD CIRCUIT. THIS COURT

02:02 - 55.869 HAS CONSISTENTLY PROPERLY

02:02 - 57.449 INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE

02:02 - 59.669 BRUTON TRILOGY THE SUPREME

02:02 - 00.919 COURT'S USE ME THE 3RD CIRCUIT

02:03 - 03.010 ON THE OTHER HAND. THEY.

02:03 - 06.189 BASICALLY HOLD THAT ANY NEUTRAL

02:03 - 08.049 PHRASE READ ACTION WILL RESULT

02:03 - 10.129 IN GRANTING OF A WRIT OF HABEAS

02:03 - 11.459 CORPUS UNLESS THERE'S A SUDDEN

02:03 - 13.079 NOW YOU JUMPED YOU JUMP FROM

02:03 - 15.619 ONE ROAD APPLICATION TO THE

02:03 - 17.670 POLAR OPPOSITE ROAD APPLICATION

02:03 - 19.410 DON'T TO KATE DOESN'T

02:03 - 21.549 DOESN'T THE CASE LAST STAND FOR

02:03 - 23.780 NEW ONES STAND FOR CONTEXT.

02:03 - 25.199 AND STAND AGAINST ROAD

02:03 - 26.909 APPLICATION ON ONE POLL OR