Legal Case Summary

And when I'll call the case of the United States versus Kerry Woods, Mr. John the Baptist. You have to be honours, Daryngyan, but to some behalf of a Palant Kerry Woods, that please the Court, Yana, I would request two minutes for rebuttal. At request, we'll be granted. I would like to start off by addressing the issue I raised with respect to the courts on admission into evidence. Evidence of the September 20, 2003 drug seizure. I believe in this case that the courts decision to admit that evidence into evidence was in the incorrect Rana and that my client did suffer prejudice. The fact that my client as a courier, the evidence was that my client was a courier and that he took perhaps three travels to North Carolina where in each instance he supposedly carried 10 kilograms of cocaine. Now although I never raised the issue with respect to his sentence, my client, because of that, you know, was facing an enhancement based upon the 30 kilograms of cocaine that the testimony of Glentz and Isaac and Miss Wright was in the case. Now, it's important to note that other than this September 28, 2003 drug evidence, there was no other evidence of cocaine admitted into the court and that the testimony of the government's witnesses, Mr. Isaac was that in each instance, 10 kilograms was being transported from St. Thomas on the Virgin Islands to North Carolina. His testimony was that the evidence came to know, I mean, the drugs came to North Carolina by way of career and luggage

. The September 20, 2000 and three drug seizure according to testimony of the government's three key witnesses as it pertains to that evidence was that agents at the airport discovered two bags on one hand there was testimony that the bags were tag-less bags that were to be checked onto the airline. On the other hand, I think it was an agent peak, testified that the bags that were discovered had bad tags, but nonetheless, it was also destined to be checked back. No, the testimony of Mr. Isaac as well as the testimony from Mr. Sprungett was that the methodology that they always use was never anything involving bad tags or whatnot, but perhaps in one instance, there was a methodology where they switched bags, where bags would be placed either in the ceiling of the airport the night before or it would be placed in a locker and then subsequently an individual will come into the airport, flare costumes with a clean bag and then once they got beyond costumes, they would switch out the bag with the bag containing the drugs. So I think that in this instance, there was absolutely no connection between that September 20, 2000 on Sri Drogsyja to the particular conspiracy that was charged in this case. Well, well, you're a co-conspirator, Claksden, challenges knowledge of the object of the conspiracy in a related case that you're equating with the US versus Claksden. Yes, yes, but I'm not sure. That's a case which I dissented for, they shouldn't be found guilty. Yes, but I'm not talking yet, I'm not yet talking about the sufficiency of the evidence as it pertains to the conspiracy charge. I'm just talking about the court's decision to admit that drug evidence into the case. Well, yeah, but once that's in the case, if it's properly within the case, you also object to the to the to the sufficiency of the evidence

. Of course, yes, yes, I do. Yes, I do. On the exact same evidence, we are convicted. I have trash to send it, but the panel convicted your co-offend on the exact same evidence. Well, when you said the exact same evidence, I would like to point out that what the court said in the Claksden case was that the co-conspirator, Isaac, basically identified Mr. Claksden. He basically gave some testimony on I think that what the distinguishing point from me is that here, Mr. Kerry was, was never truly identified as a member of the conspiracy. Well, yeah, but the facts in a Claksden are exactly the same as the facts in this case and the admission of the evidence as you was the same. I agreed with you and I went down the drain in that case. Yes, but so where are you going to this case? You have the exact and not only that, but since that case is decided, the third circuit has now made it more difficult for a defendant to make that argument. They only have my in my opinion, even in light of the Caravallo Rodriguez decision, the door is in company

. You shut down my client because I think my client, you know, stands a little differently from even Mr. Claksden. My client during the course of the trial, there were pictures that the government had need about showing all these different individuals who are a member of this conspiracy. They refer to them being on the farm and all this sort of stuff. There was not that evidence as it pertains to my client into this. My client was not depicted in any photographs. I'm sorry, my client was not depicted in any photographs. My client was not seen at the farm or anything, Mr. Isaac never. This is important, Mr. Isaac testified to see each and every, I don't mean to show everybody else under the bus, but Mr. Isaac never said that he saw my client at the farm

. He never said that. So all we have is that Mr. Isaac indicated that when he received a full car from Mr. Freeman, Mr. Freeman supposedly said that he was going to be sending someone by the name of Paba, that Paba will be coming with a bag, and that this possible is ultimately identified as Mr. Kerry Woods. He didn't have, when Mr. Kerry Woods came over to North Carolina, he surrendered the bag. Mr. Isaac took the bag and went somewhere else in a not a room and supposedly opened the bag. On the second instance, in June of 2004, June of 2005, he indicated that Mr. Kerry Woods came up to North Carolina and met with somebody else where this exchange took place

. So coming into with respect to the court's new holding with respect to sufficiency of the evidence, what I would like to say is that here we never have anything other than the control and dominion that the court talks about with respect to him having a bag that we can somehow perhaps infuse some knowledge of the contents. Other than that, I take note of that, but other than that, there's nothing showing that Mr., I mean, who's the say that Mr. Kerry Woods did not believe that the bags contained money just as Alexis Wright. Ms. Wright testified that the only thing she knew about the bags she was carrying was that on one instance, she was told that she was carrying $200,000. My client likewise believed that what he was carrying was money. The government did not produce any other evidence other than the testimony of Mr. Isaac or the testimony of Ms. Wright. I would like to address some of the other issues before all my time, and Isaac talked about your client going to a specific location with the interacted with other members of the conspiracy and they talked about drug-related activities. Not Mr

. Woods, I would like the court to point me to not Mr. Woods, not Mr. Woods. I would like the court to point me to that. I thought that there was some evidence of that. Not with respect to Mr. Woods. But Clarkson, it was associated with drug dealers. They were associated with them somehow. Perhaps there was no testimony indicated that Mr. Woods associated himself with the other courty friends, other than the testimony that he carried these bags to the mainland. Get back

. I want to get back to your point about the 2003 seizure. One of the requirements that the government had was to prove the existence of the conspiracy. As that, the existence of the conspiracy was important to prove as to all defendants. So, wasn't that certainly that testimony about the 2003 seizure was probative? And under 403, there is a presumption that the probative value, that there is probative value. And if the district court properly found that it outweighed any prejudice to your client, wasn't it properly admitted? In the left-go-view, US, in 1934, case, the Supreme Court said, you know, conspiracy charge, evidence that established another conspiracy cannot be used to support guilty voting. Here in this instance, I think that everything the government's own evidence flies against any inkling or any idea that these drugs could have been attributed to the defenders in this instance. Every shipment includes every shipment involved only 10 kilograms, each instance. Again, it was always a carry-on luggage, never-checked luggage. The government's evidence of the seizure was that it was 20 kilograms. I think it was 16 kilos wearing 20 points, something, or something like that. But it was twice what the defendants in this instance, or it was twice what the testimony was that was being transported by these individuals on each occasion. So I think although a court have some probative value, in this instance, the evidence clearly, the drugs in question could not be tied to the conspiracy charge in this case

. And therefore, it was totally improper for the court to have made that evidence in. I think by way of my letter brief, I addressed the courts on songs with respect to Caravallo Rodriguez. I don't think that the door shut on my client 100%. I think that has been narrowed significantly. But I'll reserve my two minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. John Baptiste and Mr. Jones. Please go on those and zones for the United States. With respect to the claim that there was no evidence that is the cocaine season airport on September 2003 was part of the conspiracy. I refer the court to the transcript in which Isaac testified that he was advised by the co-conspirator Mark that the cocaine that was seized on September 22, 2003, belonged to their organization and was intended for distribution by Isaac

. And that is founded the joint appendix volume two pages 483 to 484. So it was clear evidence, by a co-conspirator, that in fact another co-conspirator had advised him that the drug season airport were in fact owned by the organization and that they were being delivered to Isaac for. What specific evidence is there in this record that would do that the object of the conspiracy was cocaine as opposed to some other contraband? You know, you have to show that he knew he was transporting cocaine. We have to show that he knew he was trans... Well, basically with the court decision of carbide Rodriguez, what the third circuit is said is once the jury has made a determination, a return of verdict based on the evidence presented, the third circuit will not go behind that verdict to make a determination whether in fact there was a basis for it. Yeah, but it's got to be rational. The jury has to rationally file that he knew he was dealing with cocaine. What evidence here? I'm not rewriting claxon, do you want to say a few more? The facts in this case. Well, you have to testimony of Mr. Isaac who testified that Mr

. Woods was a part of the conspiracy that Mr. Woods was a member of the organization, the testimony of Mr. of Cold Conspirator Isaac, that in fact he met with Mr. Woods. Mr. Woods brought the cocaine to him 10 kilograms that he sent Mr. Lexus right to pick up Mr. But what evidence show that he knew that he got was cocaine or what these people were dealing with cocaine. But he was the one who transported from the St. Thomas to North Carolina. But he never saw it. He had to see, he went through customs with it. He went through the airport here in St. Thomas, left the airport in St. Thomas with the drugs. That's true, but there's no evidence that he knew it was cocaine. Well, that's a question for the jury and a jury made a determination that in fact he knew it was cocaine. How did they know it was cocaine? How did the jury make that determination? Yeah, rationally, how can they find that he knew it was cocaine that he was transporting? And not some other, even other contraband or something. Based on the testimony of Mr. Isaac that Mr. Clax, that Mr. Woods was in fact a member of the organization that Mr. Woods was in fact a Cold Conspirator in this organization as far as the dealing of cocaine through the airport in St. Thomas, the jury was authorized to make a rational inference that in fact Mr

. He went through the airport here in St. Thomas, left the airport in St. Thomas with the drugs. That's true, but there's no evidence that he knew it was cocaine. Well, that's a question for the jury and a jury made a determination that in fact he knew it was cocaine. How did they know it was cocaine? How did the jury make that determination? Yeah, rationally, how can they find that he knew it was cocaine that he was transporting? And not some other, even other contraband or something. Based on the testimony of Mr. Isaac that Mr. Clax, that Mr. Woods was in fact a member of the organization that Mr. Woods was in fact a Cold Conspirator in this organization as far as the dealing of cocaine through the airport in St. Thomas, the jury was authorized to make a rational inference that in fact Mr. Woods knew what he was doing. Didn't I say he delivered it and received $5,000 in return? Yes, that's why I indicated that Isaac testified that in fact Mr. Woods brought the cocaine to North Carolina and that gave it back to Mr. Isaac and Mr. Isaac in turn gave him $5,000. Okay, I don't want to beat a dead horse here but that's true. He knew he was getting a lot of money to do something but don't you have to prove that he knew what he was doing was cocaine. That was the object of the conspiracy. One of the four things which is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. What did the record chose that he knew he was getting $5,000 to transport cocaine these are the marijuana and we submitted a court that based on his cover by Rodriguez it doesn't make a difference what he thought is cocaine oh marijuana as long as the jury is satisfied that in fact he knew what was cocaine based on the testimony that that was presented to the to the jury and we submit that based on the fact that Mr. Isaac testified that Mr. Woods was a member of conspiracy that Mr

. Woods knew what he was doing. Didn't I say he delivered it and received $5,000 in return? Yes, that's why I indicated that Isaac testified that in fact Mr. Woods brought the cocaine to North Carolina and that gave it back to Mr. Isaac and Mr. Isaac in turn gave him $5,000. Okay, I don't want to beat a dead horse here but that's true. He knew he was getting a lot of money to do something but don't you have to prove that he knew what he was doing was cocaine. That was the object of the conspiracy. One of the four things which is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. What did the record chose that he knew he was getting $5,000 to transport cocaine these are the marijuana and we submitted a court that based on his cover by Rodriguez it doesn't make a difference what he thought is cocaine oh marijuana as long as the jury is satisfied that in fact he knew what was cocaine based on the testimony that that was presented to the to the jury and we submit that based on the fact that Mr. Isaac testified that Mr. Woods was a member of conspiracy that Mr. Woods did in fact bring cocaine from the Virgin Islands to North Carolina did deliver the cocaine to Mr. Isaac that he was paid $5,000 for that and that in fact he was advised by another member of the conspiracy that in fact Mr. Woods would be delivering cocaine to him and in fact Mr. Woods did that we submit that gave the jury the authority to draw a reasonable inference that in fact Mr. Woods knew they was delivering cocaine to Mr. Isaac. With respect to the a camera with that I dealt with the September 20th issue concerning the cocaine and the fact that the cocaine seized at the airport on September 22, 2003 Mr. Isaac testified that in conversation with Mr. Mark that Mr. Mark advised him that in fact that cocaine was intended for distribution in North Carolina by Mr. Isaac and that cocaine belonged to organization and they forced positive conspiracy and as far as the and as far as the the truth that the government had to present to the jury to establish conspiracy was submit that evidence was properly. Mr

. Woods did in fact bring cocaine from the Virgin Islands to North Carolina did deliver the cocaine to Mr. Isaac that he was paid $5,000 for that and that in fact he was advised by another member of the conspiracy that in fact Mr. Woods would be delivering cocaine to him and in fact Mr. Woods did that we submit that gave the jury the authority to draw a reasonable inference that in fact Mr. Woods knew they was delivering cocaine to Mr. Isaac. With respect to the a camera with that I dealt with the September 20th issue concerning the cocaine and the fact that the cocaine seized at the airport on September 22, 2003 Mr. Isaac testified that in conversation with Mr. Mark that Mr. Mark advised him that in fact that cocaine was intended for distribution in North Carolina by Mr. Isaac and that cocaine belonged to organization and they forced positive conspiracy and as far as the and as far as the the truth that the government had to present to the jury to establish conspiracy was submit that evidence was properly. Mr. Jones let me ask you a question that Mr. John Baptiste didn't touch on but it's in his brief. The question about the the contact with juror 125 and juror 159. Their argument is and it's raised by another one of the defendants. The argument was that the district court should have interrogated all of the jurors to make sure that they hadn't been any that they didn't become notified that someone tried to tamper with juror 125. What do you say to that argument? I disagree. My the becomes position is that the court did exactly what was required for it to do that is it made a determination after speaking to both jurors I believe it was 159 and 125 concerning where they had any other contact with any other members of the jury and they both indicated they had not there was no need to go any further. Well you don't have to believe what they say you don't know whether there's tainted on unless you also interrogate the ballots of the panel. I mean they could have said that because they didn't want to get involved anymore but I think why did they have an obligation to speak to the rest of the panel to see whether they were tainted with the knowledge. I think that the district court was trying to keep from involving the rest of the jury unnecessarily that is if the court is satisfied that the responses it has received from the two suspected jurors that is 159 and 125 that there was no further contact with any other juror I submit to the court that therefore the court was correct. So he's got to take their word for it right even though he could verify whether they were correct or not by asking the ballots of the panel he's got to take their word for it. Correct

. Jones let me ask you a question that Mr. John Baptiste didn't touch on but it's in his brief. The question about the the contact with juror 125 and juror 159. Their argument is and it's raised by another one of the defendants. The argument was that the district court should have interrogated all of the jurors to make sure that they hadn't been any that they didn't become notified that someone tried to tamper with juror 125. What do you say to that argument? I disagree. My the becomes position is that the court did exactly what was required for it to do that is it made a determination after speaking to both jurors I believe it was 159 and 125 concerning where they had any other contact with any other members of the jury and they both indicated they had not there was no need to go any further. Well you don't have to believe what they say you don't know whether there's tainted on unless you also interrogate the ballots of the panel. I mean they could have said that because they didn't want to get involved anymore but I think why did they have an obligation to speak to the rest of the panel to see whether they were tainted with the knowledge. I think that the district court was trying to keep from involving the rest of the jury unnecessarily that is if the court is satisfied that the responses it has received from the two suspected jurors that is 159 and 125 that there was no further contact with any other juror I submit to the court that therefore the court was correct. So he's got to take their word for it right even though he could verify whether they were correct or not by asking the ballots of the panel he's got to take their word for it. Correct. Well I might not buy that. Why does he have to take their word for it? He could have he could have verified whether there was any tape I just simply asking the ballots of the panel to anyone's anyone speak to you about any tanky-packy here. And then would have raised the the specter of involvement itself in the other jurors business. The bottom line is that he asked the two particular jurors who were involved and the other jurors also had a affirmative duty if they had had any unlawful contact or any contact concerning the case that by the court and no one else did. But the concern is I think the one I ask about Judge Collins expressing the concern about is you know 125 admitted she told brother sister in Ant who happened to be 159. Correct. Yeah over the period of time in which she continued to be part of that jury. And I mean if she said anything about this alleged jury tampering that's a very prejudicial that's very prejudicial information because if in fact somebody's trying to tamper with the jury there's a strong presumption that these guys must be guilty whether they wouldn't be trying to present you know pressure the jury. And it's almost like a you know an almost like a reaction the other way that we'll show these guys. Well I mean it's just a question that I don't it's so basic and fundamental I wonder what the right way to go here is and that's why I'm asking you for some guidance did the district court do it the right way. I think the district court did you. I just taking our word for it

. Well I might not buy that. Why does he have to take their word for it? He could have he could have verified whether there was any tape I just simply asking the ballots of the panel to anyone's anyone speak to you about any tanky-packy here. And then would have raised the the specter of involvement itself in the other jurors business. The bottom line is that he asked the two particular jurors who were involved and the other jurors also had a affirmative duty if they had had any unlawful contact or any contact concerning the case that by the court and no one else did. But the concern is I think the one I ask about Judge Collins expressing the concern about is you know 125 admitted she told brother sister in Ant who happened to be 159. Correct. Yeah over the period of time in which she continued to be part of that jury. And I mean if she said anything about this alleged jury tampering that's a very prejudicial that's very prejudicial information because if in fact somebody's trying to tamper with the jury there's a strong presumption that these guys must be guilty whether they wouldn't be trying to present you know pressure the jury. And it's almost like a you know an almost like a reaction the other way that we'll show these guys. Well I mean it's just a question that I don't it's so basic and fundamental I wonder what the right way to go here is and that's why I'm asking you for some guidance did the district court do it the right way. I think the district court did you. I just taking our word for it. By questioning them concerning their involvement and what was told to them and what they had done subsequent with that information. And the fact remains that 125 came forward to the court herself does there's any other jury would you choose to require to do if they had had any unlawful contact or unauthorized contact and no other jurors other than 125 and 159 reported to the court. There in essence what you're saying is the backlash could have been worse if they had a voidier of all the jurors. Correct. Well the backlash was the district judges dropped to do that's what he's that's what we hire him for it is it. I understand the job but it's also the job of the district court judge not to invade the province of the jury. Thank you very much Mr. John Baptiste. I want to thank the justice for kind of raising the the jury issue because I didn't get a chance to do so today so I did want to point out that the third circuit in a USV council pointed to you know just this type of instance where it's deemed the most serious nature where there's contact between authority and a juror. And this is one of the rare instances where you have a presumption of prejudice and as I indicated in my brief I thought that it would have been more appropriate for the court to inquire of the entire jury panel and stuff to see if indeed there was any contact if juror 125 or even 159 had had you know passed on you know what had happened to them. So I think that in this instance that the more appropriate thing for the court to have done down below was to have inquired of the other jurors. And the government just indicated that the sanity of the jury not wanting to invade the province of the jury but let's not forget the rights of my client

. By questioning them concerning their involvement and what was told to them and what they had done subsequent with that information. And the fact remains that 125 came forward to the court herself does there's any other jury would you choose to require to do if they had had any unlawful contact or unauthorized contact and no other jurors other than 125 and 159 reported to the court. There in essence what you're saying is the backlash could have been worse if they had a voidier of all the jurors. Correct. Well the backlash was the district judges dropped to do that's what he's that's what we hire him for it is it. I understand the job but it's also the job of the district court judge not to invade the province of the jury. Thank you very much Mr. John Baptiste. I want to thank the justice for kind of raising the the jury issue because I didn't get a chance to do so today so I did want to point out that the third circuit in a USV council pointed to you know just this type of instance where it's deemed the most serious nature where there's contact between authority and a juror. And this is one of the rare instances where you have a presumption of prejudice and as I indicated in my brief I thought that it would have been more appropriate for the court to inquire of the entire jury panel and stuff to see if indeed there was any contact if juror 125 or even 159 had had you know passed on you know what had happened to them. So I think that in this instance that the more appropriate thing for the court to have done down below was to have inquired of the other jurors. And the government just indicated that the sanity of the jury not wanting to invade the province of the jury but let's not forget the rights of my client. The defendants rights to have fair trial. So I think that perhaps my client's rights should reveal over the court's concerns over the jury. I saw it and it feels so. Now going back with respect to Attorney Jones indicated that there was a direct testimony on the record that September 22, 2003 seizure was you know drugs the drugs of the conspiracy child in this case but actually the testimony of Mr. Isaac was that he had received a telephone call from or he had spoken to Mr. Maat and Mr. Maat indicated that one second that he would be sending another shipment because a September seizure had a call. No he didn't indicate that the September 20, 2003 seizure was his drugs but he indicate he didn't fact indicate Mr. Isaac indicated that Mr. Maat had indicated that he had some drugs that he lost by virtue of a seizure in September. Now the government didn't you know come forward and indicate that there were no other seizures in September of 2003. The government didn't present that sort of testimony but I think that it would require a stretch for the court to believe that just based on Mr

. The defendants rights to have fair trial. So I think that perhaps my client's rights should reveal over the court's concerns over the jury. I saw it and it feels so. Now going back with respect to Attorney Jones indicated that there was a direct testimony on the record that September 22, 2003 seizure was you know drugs the drugs of the conspiracy child in this case but actually the testimony of Mr. Isaac was that he had received a telephone call from or he had spoken to Mr. Maat and Mr. Maat indicated that one second that he would be sending another shipment because a September seizure had a call. No he didn't indicate that the September 20, 2003 seizure was his drugs but he indicate he didn't fact indicate Mr. Isaac indicated that Mr. Maat had indicated that he had some drugs that he lost by virtue of a seizure in September. Now the government didn't you know come forward and indicate that there were no other seizures in September of 2003. The government didn't present that sort of testimony but I think that it would require a stretch for the court to believe that just based on Mr. Isaac's self-self in testimony that this seizure of Mr. Maat told him about was in fact the September 20, 2003 seizure. Now with respect to just not to beat that death was but just going back to Carabillo Rodriguez. I think it's a fact specific inquiry that you know the court has to undergo here and I think looking at all of the evidence you know I'm producing all of the evidence asked to Mr. Woods is just simply the testimony of Mr. Isaac and the testimony of Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright only adds that she she met Mr. Woods on three different occasions she doesn't say anything about her knowledge of what's in the bags or anything and Mr. Isaac you know simply indicates that on one occasion he obtained a bag from Mr. Woods and in fact that he didn't fact pay him $5,000 but he didn't say the testimony wasn't that he paid him $5,000 in exchange for the drugs that he gave him he just paid him $5,000 once he got the bag

. Isaac's self-self in testimony that this seizure of Mr. Maat told him about was in fact the September 20, 2003 seizure. Now with respect to just not to beat that death was but just going back to Carabillo Rodriguez. I think it's a fact specific inquiry that you know the court has to undergo here and I think looking at all of the evidence you know I'm producing all of the evidence asked to Mr. Woods is just simply the testimony of Mr. Isaac and the testimony of Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright only adds that she she met Mr. Woods on three different occasions she doesn't say anything about her knowledge of what's in the bags or anything and Mr. Isaac you know simply indicates that on one occasion he obtained a bag from Mr. Woods and in fact that he didn't fact pay him $5,000 but he didn't say the testimony wasn't that he paid him $5,000 in exchange for the drugs that he gave him he just paid him $5,000 once he got the bag. The second instance again in June was that the bag was delivered to some other talk also and that you don't get $5,000 you're delivering a bag unless you're something in the bag but this circuit's a case that basically says that the government has to be able to produce evidence that you know it's conspiracy the agreement was to possess any time to distribute all the evidence in this case was that your client Mr. Woods was involved in this big time cocaine drug conspiracy it was in data reasonable inference for the jury to draw. Well once we take away the incorrect admission of the September 22,000 and tree drug evidence I don't think so I don't think so I mean like like I pointed out earlier it could very well have been bags of money that was being transported we don't know and at that point the government also indicated that Mr. Woods went through customs with these bags so he must have known that drugs wasn't there the government's own evidence was that the bags came in through the courier through the airport with clean bags no drugs in there and that subsequent to clearing customs the drug bag I think that's what he meant so I think that if that's the case it removes the opportunity for Mr. Cherry Woods because he would not have had that bag until he got into the protected area beyond customs so it removes the opportunity for him to have gone you know indeed what's in the bag because he didn't arrive at the airport. Mark's methodology he also testified that the bag that would end up carrying with him was a bag that somebody on the inside brought in with cocaine so that all of these facts or facts from which a jury could properly draw an inference at the bag that Mr. Woods carried for which he got $5,000 was a bag of cocaine. He had to end time to agreement for a specific paul paul say which is conspiracy to possess an intent to distribute cocaine so yes all of this other evidence you know comes into it makes as well but there has to be some evidence for us to know that he had a specific intent required knowledge that it was the conspiracy was to possess with intent to distribute the cocaine. Okay all right thank you Mr. John Baptiste we thank both counsel for excellent arguments and

And when I'll call the case of the United States versus Kerry Woods, Mr. John the Baptist. You have to be honours, Daryngyan, but to some behalf of a Palant Kerry Woods, that please the Court, Yana, I would request two minutes for rebuttal. At request, we'll be granted. I would like to start off by addressing the issue I raised with respect to the courts on admission into evidence. Evidence of the September 20, 2003 drug seizure. I believe in this case that the courts decision to admit that evidence into evidence was in the incorrect Rana and that my client did suffer prejudice. The fact that my client as a courier, the evidence was that my client was a courier and that he took perhaps three travels to North Carolina where in each instance he supposedly carried 10 kilograms of cocaine. Now although I never raised the issue with respect to his sentence, my client, because of that, you know, was facing an enhancement based upon the 30 kilograms of cocaine that the testimony of Glentz and Isaac and Miss Wright was in the case. Now, it's important to note that other than this September 28, 2003 drug evidence, there was no other evidence of cocaine admitted into the court and that the testimony of the government's witnesses, Mr. Isaac was that in each instance, 10 kilograms was being transported from St. Thomas on the Virgin Islands to North Carolina. His testimony was that the evidence came to know, I mean, the drugs came to North Carolina by way of career and luggage. The September 20, 2000 and three drug seizure according to testimony of the government's three key witnesses as it pertains to that evidence was that agents at the airport discovered two bags on one hand there was testimony that the bags were tag-less bags that were to be checked onto the airline. On the other hand, I think it was an agent peak, testified that the bags that were discovered had bad tags, but nonetheless, it was also destined to be checked back. No, the testimony of Mr. Isaac as well as the testimony from Mr. Sprungett was that the methodology that they always use was never anything involving bad tags or whatnot, but perhaps in one instance, there was a methodology where they switched bags, where bags would be placed either in the ceiling of the airport the night before or it would be placed in a locker and then subsequently an individual will come into the airport, flare costumes with a clean bag and then once they got beyond costumes, they would switch out the bag with the bag containing the drugs. So I think that in this instance, there was absolutely no connection between that September 20, 2000 on Sri Drogsyja to the particular conspiracy that was charged in this case. Well, well, you're a co-conspirator, Claksden, challenges knowledge of the object of the conspiracy in a related case that you're equating with the US versus Claksden. Yes, yes, but I'm not sure. That's a case which I dissented for, they shouldn't be found guilty. Yes, but I'm not talking yet, I'm not yet talking about the sufficiency of the evidence as it pertains to the conspiracy charge. I'm just talking about the court's decision to admit that drug evidence into the case. Well, yeah, but once that's in the case, if it's properly within the case, you also object to the to the to the sufficiency of the evidence. Of course, yes, yes, I do. Yes, I do. On the exact same evidence, we are convicted. I have trash to send it, but the panel convicted your co-offend on the exact same evidence. Well, when you said the exact same evidence, I would like to point out that what the court said in the Claksden case was that the co-conspirator, Isaac, basically identified Mr. Claksden. He basically gave some testimony on I think that what the distinguishing point from me is that here, Mr. Kerry was, was never truly identified as a member of the conspiracy. Well, yeah, but the facts in a Claksden are exactly the same as the facts in this case and the admission of the evidence as you was the same. I agreed with you and I went down the drain in that case. Yes, but so where are you going to this case? You have the exact and not only that, but since that case is decided, the third circuit has now made it more difficult for a defendant to make that argument. They only have my in my opinion, even in light of the Caravallo Rodriguez decision, the door is in company. You shut down my client because I think my client, you know, stands a little differently from even Mr. Claksden. My client during the course of the trial, there were pictures that the government had need about showing all these different individuals who are a member of this conspiracy. They refer to them being on the farm and all this sort of stuff. There was not that evidence as it pertains to my client into this. My client was not depicted in any photographs. I'm sorry, my client was not depicted in any photographs. My client was not seen at the farm or anything, Mr. Isaac never. This is important, Mr. Isaac testified to see each and every, I don't mean to show everybody else under the bus, but Mr. Isaac never said that he saw my client at the farm. He never said that. So all we have is that Mr. Isaac indicated that when he received a full car from Mr. Freeman, Mr. Freeman supposedly said that he was going to be sending someone by the name of Paba, that Paba will be coming with a bag, and that this possible is ultimately identified as Mr. Kerry Woods. He didn't have, when Mr. Kerry Woods came over to North Carolina, he surrendered the bag. Mr. Isaac took the bag and went somewhere else in a not a room and supposedly opened the bag. On the second instance, in June of 2004, June of 2005, he indicated that Mr. Kerry Woods came up to North Carolina and met with somebody else where this exchange took place. So coming into with respect to the court's new holding with respect to sufficiency of the evidence, what I would like to say is that here we never have anything other than the control and dominion that the court talks about with respect to him having a bag that we can somehow perhaps infuse some knowledge of the contents. Other than that, I take note of that, but other than that, there's nothing showing that Mr., I mean, who's the say that Mr. Kerry Woods did not believe that the bags contained money just as Alexis Wright. Ms. Wright testified that the only thing she knew about the bags she was carrying was that on one instance, she was told that she was carrying $200,000. My client likewise believed that what he was carrying was money. The government did not produce any other evidence other than the testimony of Mr. Isaac or the testimony of Ms. Wright. I would like to address some of the other issues before all my time, and Isaac talked about your client going to a specific location with the interacted with other members of the conspiracy and they talked about drug-related activities. Not Mr. Woods, I would like the court to point me to not Mr. Woods, not Mr. Woods. I would like the court to point me to that. I thought that there was some evidence of that. Not with respect to Mr. Woods. But Clarkson, it was associated with drug dealers. They were associated with them somehow. Perhaps there was no testimony indicated that Mr. Woods associated himself with the other courty friends, other than the testimony that he carried these bags to the mainland. Get back. I want to get back to your point about the 2003 seizure. One of the requirements that the government had was to prove the existence of the conspiracy. As that, the existence of the conspiracy was important to prove as to all defendants. So, wasn't that certainly that testimony about the 2003 seizure was probative? And under 403, there is a presumption that the probative value, that there is probative value. And if the district court properly found that it outweighed any prejudice to your client, wasn't it properly admitted? In the left-go-view, US, in 1934, case, the Supreme Court said, you know, conspiracy charge, evidence that established another conspiracy cannot be used to support guilty voting. Here in this instance, I think that everything the government's own evidence flies against any inkling or any idea that these drugs could have been attributed to the defenders in this instance. Every shipment includes every shipment involved only 10 kilograms, each instance. Again, it was always a carry-on luggage, never-checked luggage. The government's evidence of the seizure was that it was 20 kilograms. I think it was 16 kilos wearing 20 points, something, or something like that. But it was twice what the defendants in this instance, or it was twice what the testimony was that was being transported by these individuals on each occasion. So I think although a court have some probative value, in this instance, the evidence clearly, the drugs in question could not be tied to the conspiracy charge in this case. And therefore, it was totally improper for the court to have made that evidence in. I think by way of my letter brief, I addressed the courts on songs with respect to Caravallo Rodriguez. I don't think that the door shut on my client 100%. I think that has been narrowed significantly. But I'll reserve my two minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. John Baptiste and Mr. Jones. Please go on those and zones for the United States. With respect to the claim that there was no evidence that is the cocaine season airport on September 2003 was part of the conspiracy. I refer the court to the transcript in which Isaac testified that he was advised by the co-conspirator Mark that the cocaine that was seized on September 22, 2003, belonged to their organization and was intended for distribution by Isaac. And that is founded the joint appendix volume two pages 483 to 484. So it was clear evidence, by a co-conspirator, that in fact another co-conspirator had advised him that the drug season airport were in fact owned by the organization and that they were being delivered to Isaac for. What specific evidence is there in this record that would do that the object of the conspiracy was cocaine as opposed to some other contraband? You know, you have to show that he knew he was transporting cocaine. We have to show that he knew he was trans... Well, basically with the court decision of carbide Rodriguez, what the third circuit is said is once the jury has made a determination, a return of verdict based on the evidence presented, the third circuit will not go behind that verdict to make a determination whether in fact there was a basis for it. Yeah, but it's got to be rational. The jury has to rationally file that he knew he was dealing with cocaine. What evidence here? I'm not rewriting claxon, do you want to say a few more? The facts in this case. Well, you have to testimony of Mr. Isaac who testified that Mr. Woods was a part of the conspiracy that Mr. Woods was a member of the organization, the testimony of Mr. of Cold Conspirator Isaac, that in fact he met with Mr. Woods. Mr. Woods brought the cocaine to him 10 kilograms that he sent Mr. Lexus right to pick up Mr. But what evidence show that he knew that he got was cocaine or what these people were dealing with cocaine. But he was the one who transported from the St. Thomas to North Carolina. But he never saw it. He had to see, he went through customs with it. He went through the airport here in St. Thomas, left the airport in St. Thomas with the drugs. That's true, but there's no evidence that he knew it was cocaine. Well, that's a question for the jury and a jury made a determination that in fact he knew it was cocaine. How did they know it was cocaine? How did the jury make that determination? Yeah, rationally, how can they find that he knew it was cocaine that he was transporting? And not some other, even other contraband or something. Based on the testimony of Mr. Isaac that Mr. Clax, that Mr. Woods was in fact a member of the organization that Mr. Woods was in fact a Cold Conspirator in this organization as far as the dealing of cocaine through the airport in St. Thomas, the jury was authorized to make a rational inference that in fact Mr. Woods knew what he was doing. Didn't I say he delivered it and received $5,000 in return? Yes, that's why I indicated that Isaac testified that in fact Mr. Woods brought the cocaine to North Carolina and that gave it back to Mr. Isaac and Mr. Isaac in turn gave him $5,000. Okay, I don't want to beat a dead horse here but that's true. He knew he was getting a lot of money to do something but don't you have to prove that he knew what he was doing was cocaine. That was the object of the conspiracy. One of the four things which is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. What did the record chose that he knew he was getting $5,000 to transport cocaine these are the marijuana and we submitted a court that based on his cover by Rodriguez it doesn't make a difference what he thought is cocaine oh marijuana as long as the jury is satisfied that in fact he knew what was cocaine based on the testimony that that was presented to the to the jury and we submit that based on the fact that Mr. Isaac testified that Mr. Woods was a member of conspiracy that Mr. Woods did in fact bring cocaine from the Virgin Islands to North Carolina did deliver the cocaine to Mr. Isaac that he was paid $5,000 for that and that in fact he was advised by another member of the conspiracy that in fact Mr. Woods would be delivering cocaine to him and in fact Mr. Woods did that we submit that gave the jury the authority to draw a reasonable inference that in fact Mr. Woods knew they was delivering cocaine to Mr. Isaac. With respect to the a camera with that I dealt with the September 20th issue concerning the cocaine and the fact that the cocaine seized at the airport on September 22, 2003 Mr. Isaac testified that in conversation with Mr. Mark that Mr. Mark advised him that in fact that cocaine was intended for distribution in North Carolina by Mr. Isaac and that cocaine belonged to organization and they forced positive conspiracy and as far as the and as far as the the truth that the government had to present to the jury to establish conspiracy was submit that evidence was properly. Mr. Jones let me ask you a question that Mr. John Baptiste didn't touch on but it's in his brief. The question about the the contact with juror 125 and juror 159. Their argument is and it's raised by another one of the defendants. The argument was that the district court should have interrogated all of the jurors to make sure that they hadn't been any that they didn't become notified that someone tried to tamper with juror 125. What do you say to that argument? I disagree. My the becomes position is that the court did exactly what was required for it to do that is it made a determination after speaking to both jurors I believe it was 159 and 125 concerning where they had any other contact with any other members of the jury and they both indicated they had not there was no need to go any further. Well you don't have to believe what they say you don't know whether there's tainted on unless you also interrogate the ballots of the panel. I mean they could have said that because they didn't want to get involved anymore but I think why did they have an obligation to speak to the rest of the panel to see whether they were tainted with the knowledge. I think that the district court was trying to keep from involving the rest of the jury unnecessarily that is if the court is satisfied that the responses it has received from the two suspected jurors that is 159 and 125 that there was no further contact with any other juror I submit to the court that therefore the court was correct. So he's got to take their word for it right even though he could verify whether they were correct or not by asking the ballots of the panel he's got to take their word for it. Correct. Well I might not buy that. Why does he have to take their word for it? He could have he could have verified whether there was any tape I just simply asking the ballots of the panel to anyone's anyone speak to you about any tanky-packy here. And then would have raised the the specter of involvement itself in the other jurors business. The bottom line is that he asked the two particular jurors who were involved and the other jurors also had a affirmative duty if they had had any unlawful contact or any contact concerning the case that by the court and no one else did. But the concern is I think the one I ask about Judge Collins expressing the concern about is you know 125 admitted she told brother sister in Ant who happened to be 159. Correct. Yeah over the period of time in which she continued to be part of that jury. And I mean if she said anything about this alleged jury tampering that's a very prejudicial that's very prejudicial information because if in fact somebody's trying to tamper with the jury there's a strong presumption that these guys must be guilty whether they wouldn't be trying to present you know pressure the jury. And it's almost like a you know an almost like a reaction the other way that we'll show these guys. Well I mean it's just a question that I don't it's so basic and fundamental I wonder what the right way to go here is and that's why I'm asking you for some guidance did the district court do it the right way. I think the district court did you. I just taking our word for it. By questioning them concerning their involvement and what was told to them and what they had done subsequent with that information. And the fact remains that 125 came forward to the court herself does there's any other jury would you choose to require to do if they had had any unlawful contact or unauthorized contact and no other jurors other than 125 and 159 reported to the court. There in essence what you're saying is the backlash could have been worse if they had a voidier of all the jurors. Correct. Well the backlash was the district judges dropped to do that's what he's that's what we hire him for it is it. I understand the job but it's also the job of the district court judge not to invade the province of the jury. Thank you very much Mr. John Baptiste. I want to thank the justice for kind of raising the the jury issue because I didn't get a chance to do so today so I did want to point out that the third circuit in a USV council pointed to you know just this type of instance where it's deemed the most serious nature where there's contact between authority and a juror. And this is one of the rare instances where you have a presumption of prejudice and as I indicated in my brief I thought that it would have been more appropriate for the court to inquire of the entire jury panel and stuff to see if indeed there was any contact if juror 125 or even 159 had had you know passed on you know what had happened to them. So I think that in this instance that the more appropriate thing for the court to have done down below was to have inquired of the other jurors. And the government just indicated that the sanity of the jury not wanting to invade the province of the jury but let's not forget the rights of my client. The defendants rights to have fair trial. So I think that perhaps my client's rights should reveal over the court's concerns over the jury. I saw it and it feels so. Now going back with respect to Attorney Jones indicated that there was a direct testimony on the record that September 22, 2003 seizure was you know drugs the drugs of the conspiracy child in this case but actually the testimony of Mr. Isaac was that he had received a telephone call from or he had spoken to Mr. Maat and Mr. Maat indicated that one second that he would be sending another shipment because a September seizure had a call. No he didn't indicate that the September 20, 2003 seizure was his drugs but he indicate he didn't fact indicate Mr. Isaac indicated that Mr. Maat had indicated that he had some drugs that he lost by virtue of a seizure in September. Now the government didn't you know come forward and indicate that there were no other seizures in September of 2003. The government didn't present that sort of testimony but I think that it would require a stretch for the court to believe that just based on Mr. Isaac's self-self in testimony that this seizure of Mr. Maat told him about was in fact the September 20, 2003 seizure. Now with respect to just not to beat that death was but just going back to Carabillo Rodriguez. I think it's a fact specific inquiry that you know the court has to undergo here and I think looking at all of the evidence you know I'm producing all of the evidence asked to Mr. Woods is just simply the testimony of Mr. Isaac and the testimony of Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright only adds that she she met Mr. Woods on three different occasions she doesn't say anything about her knowledge of what's in the bags or anything and Mr. Isaac you know simply indicates that on one occasion he obtained a bag from Mr. Woods and in fact that he didn't fact pay him $5,000 but he didn't say the testimony wasn't that he paid him $5,000 in exchange for the drugs that he gave him he just paid him $5,000 once he got the bag. The second instance again in June was that the bag was delivered to some other talk also and that you don't get $5,000 you're delivering a bag unless you're something in the bag but this circuit's a case that basically says that the government has to be able to produce evidence that you know it's conspiracy the agreement was to possess any time to distribute all the evidence in this case was that your client Mr. Woods was involved in this big time cocaine drug conspiracy it was in data reasonable inference for the jury to draw. Well once we take away the incorrect admission of the September 22,000 and tree drug evidence I don't think so I don't think so I mean like like I pointed out earlier it could very well have been bags of money that was being transported we don't know and at that point the government also indicated that Mr. Woods went through customs with these bags so he must have known that drugs wasn't there the government's own evidence was that the bags came in through the courier through the airport with clean bags no drugs in there and that subsequent to clearing customs the drug bag I think that's what he meant so I think that if that's the case it removes the opportunity for Mr. Cherry Woods because he would not have had that bag until he got into the protected area beyond customs so it removes the opportunity for him to have gone you know indeed what's in the bag because he didn't arrive at the airport. Mark's methodology he also testified that the bag that would end up carrying with him was a bag that somebody on the inside brought in with cocaine so that all of these facts or facts from which a jury could properly draw an inference at the bag that Mr. Woods carried for which he got $5,000 was a bag of cocaine. He had to end time to agreement for a specific paul paul say which is conspiracy to possess an intent to distribute cocaine so yes all of this other evidence you know comes into it makes as well but there has to be some evidence for us to know that he had a specific intent required knowledge that it was the conspiracy was to possess with intent to distribute the cocaine. Okay all right thank you Mr. John Baptiste we thank both counsel for excellent arguments an