[Music] and welcome to facts or frauds now it's time we get down to trial for Jamal and Stephen Perez what you are witnessing is real the participants are not actors small AKA J B and St akaa L4 Li CL and numbers are 2181 CR 00361 and 2881 cr36 and ask to identif record the Commonwealth good afternoon your honor gr Ben from the Commonwealth Ryan ra also for the coml good afternoon a z Epson raw good afternoon y Daniel Thompson for Jamal vladimer of d bay I did recognize his voice uh when the clerk checked the audio on the zoom good afternoon your honor josa raisler con for Mr Lucha El for libertad who is hopefully also on the zoom from Bill R good afternoon attorneys Thompson and racler con um trying to do sort of a triage approach I'm told that there um Mr uh Lucha L um we may lose him at 3:00 because of staffing issues at the jail so before that happens I want to try to figure out whether we can proceed in his absence if he has to leave the call or whether in effect we have 10 minutes um attorney racler con have you may not have had a chance to discuss this with your client I haven't I I was able to speak to him prior to the hearing but I haven't discussed with him um if he's amendable with a hearing proceeding in his absence I'm happy to perhaps um whoever is with him from the sheriff's department could facilitate a quick phone call I think that well that actually turns out to be a good idea because um you know under Murphy's Law we have a verdict so in the case that's jury is deliberating under so what I think will to do is take that verdict that will give you miss rleron I hope we can set up a call between you and um uh Mr uh Lucha L to figure out whether after we take the verdict you're able to proceed or whether we have to adjust our schedule in some fashion and while you're while we're taking the verdict I I I want to prioritize uh getting your feedback on the qu juror questionnaire and the Implement script so that hopefully we could go ahead with Implement even if we have some outstanding motions eliminate that have to be shoehorned in around an Implement so if we can proceed without Mr Lucha L I want to do that when we come back if we can't I think we're gonna have to when we come back we're gonna have to talk about how to approach scheduling and impalement all right thank you okay let's start with Miss rler con and by the way raisler con yes ra rler con please I I I know it's if you don't mind correcting me if I get it wrong I I don't like to mispronounce people's name but I do it with alarming frequencies so please don't hesitate to just say racer um so I get in the habit of getting it right um and that applies to everybody if I mistakes um let's start with you and ask where do things stand with respect to Mr Lucha and his I gather he can't he's can't be with us anymore on Zoom today I understand from the clerk that they've removed him from the zoom room so he's not on Zoom anymore I did have an opportunity to speak with him he is comfortable with us going forward as to um discussing the juror questionnaire and issues around in panel and Vere um any other substantive issues he would want to be present for that sounds per ly reasonable to me and I please let him know that his willingness to allow us to do the those matters as appreciated um so that means we won't do the telegram uh text messages today that's substantive uh we we'll have to sort of shoehorn that in around um the good news is it seemed to me I reviewed the text again Y in Miss raisler con's uh objections and Mr Thompson I gather joins in them maybe I've got that wrong but in any event I those are the only objections I have and it does appear to me that they are focused in such a way that the hearing itself is unlikely to take a long time it sounds it seems like a pretty manageable hearing uh and this RoR con I appreciate you're laying them out in a way that I can follow them that is concise um so whenever we um find some downtime we can do that work um are there any other motions in eliminate outstanding obviously we're not going to discuss them now but I just want to know if they're out there that we have to still address there are a few lingering issues from Monday There's the uh my motion and limb to exclude a few bits and pieces of body cam video um that I think we deferred maybe to be able to play those right videos and have we can't do that today we can't do that one today right right and then um the your honor had raised a question related to the Commonwealth's ability to impeach Mr Lucha L if you were to testify and so there's some followup around that um I think that is it in addition to the telegram chat the good I'm sorry I understood those were going to be issues that we we uh with during the trial as evidence is offered but it certainly it certainly may play out that way I think we can kind of keep I just want to keep them in mind as what's pending um the issue about doing them as as they come up is that to the extent they require editing by the Commonwealth I know the District Attorney's office staff benefits from having a day or two heads up to to actually do the physical editing but it's a moot point for today anyway because uh we are where we are um all right so let's first talk about the juror questionnaire I did get the um list of witnesses that I think Mr vanp sent um is did the def does the defense agree that those that's a comprehensive list of witnesses oh the names that maybe mentioned right is it at the bottom oh you know what this came up our pre-trial so he was at the time listed as a defendant we should ask Mr um Aaron Jimenez Aon El okay the name may be mentioned all right let me um be with me for just a moment I'm gonna open up my um digital version of it because that's the easiest thing the one question I had is are both parties content with listing the other codefendants as people who may be mentioned meaning that we are not listing them as Witnesses obviously the likelihood that any of them would actually testify as Witnesses in this case is vanishingly small yeah and it sounds like neither party is planning to try to call them um but are are the parties comfortable with listing them as people who may be mentioned I I am and they will be mentioned because they will be they will either be no I have no doubt they'll be mentioned I just want to make sure that no one no one is concerned about not listing them as potential Witnesses I mean they're I'm not concerned un f with them being listed as other names which may be mentioned all right so it's um Mr Al's name is is Aaron a a r o n yep and last name is Jimenez yeah and um also known and it's spelled a an a n AB an is AB an then L and Kar is c r r a d I believe okay all right I've added him there's um there's a there's a that didn't make it on that list he's a state police Sergeant Matthew Simpson he was involved in transporting and booking not these defendants but one of the co- defendants um but he should be on the list Matthew Simpson Matthew Simpson right and he's a sergeant yes he's a state police Sergeant I'm sorry Lieutenant he's a state police Lieutenant excuse me okay Lieutenant now what I noticed on the list too is I didn't see um I didn't see on the list any Witnesses it's it's certainly possible that some of the Witnesses on that list are witnesses that the defendants may call uh Law Enforcement Officers but I only on the list of actual witnesses to be called I saw only Law Enforcement Officers so I just want to verify there are no civilian witnesses that the defense defense want may call correct for Mr and also correct for okay that's fine let's talk about the questionnaire itself um and uh why don't we start with the defense as far as qu revisions that you think are necessary speaking for Mr Abdula Bay um uh I have in my motion for examination of yours for the following question be answer number nine would you hold it against any of the defendants if any of them chose not to testify uh in your honors questions mostly around U item number 13 going over page four page five um you did you do hit on some of the other things ask about the touline but I would ask that you ask a question would you hold it against the did not testify that's that I meant to include that um I must have edited by accident so um would you hold it against either defendant if they did not testify I will ask that question then uh throughout um look like you you uh presumption of Ence to Mr Messi oh I I'll I'll do a check on that um I'll edit for that thank you the next one is uh item number 18 at the bottom of page five it looks like this is based uh in part on my question relationship to March for our lives Etc your honor added um American r i me the National Rifle Association which I just changed but yeah it should be the National Rifle Association so I I did not ask for a National Rifle Association but I have no problem with that being put in there I know you didn't ask for it but I I kind of felt if I were going to ask about anti-gun organizations that it's only fair to the Comm to ask if you belong to Pro Gun organization and that was the only one I could really think of so I'm fine with that the next one is uh item number 24 on page six in the middle yep so I don't know how much uh I just Mr elor liad disagrees with Mr D Bay on this but Mr adula Bay in terms of I don't know where if I'm butchering the difference between you know uh race Creed and national origin but he prefers to be identified as Moroccan American not okay um let me start by asking what's Mr Lucha El's position on that well um this question is not really not aiming to get at bias the jury might have about um the defendants in front of them's race or national origin but is more based on what I expect they're going to hear during the trial that's what I was thinking too is that this isn't necessarily saying that any one defendant identifies now as a member of the moish nation but rather there's they may hear evidence that some of them at least at the time of their arrest identified in that way and I think that somebody identifies as Moroccan American um is uh I I'm trying to think I'm looking to see if there are any um there's a question about uh Muslim men um but I I I don't have too much of a sense that there's any anti- Moroccan bias that's separate from potentially anti-islamic bias well the the the the original carel from that question didn't come from uh Mr Abul um I think it was Mr elor lead's Question right but I'm just I guess what I'm saying is that I gather there is going to be evidence that some of them identified as members morish nation is that not right well the chat comes in titled the morish militia committee there's discussions about them being Moors you know in various chats there's the conversation that um even perz or Lucha poor libertad wants to exclude where Mr ladimer is talking with somebody in the phone Nam Maurice who was holding himself out to a state police officer on the phone as being a Consul or offer of the officer of the empire of Morocco which he makes clear as different from the kingdom of Morocco all right but we can't we can't cover all the the various terms what I'm just saying is I don't I mean I don't I don't know how the defense intends to use this evidence or not um I don't know that in booking for example there's going to be any discussion about any defendants identifying as being Moroccan Moroccan American or anything other than the names that they're booked so it's unclear to me uh what this question is designed to far it out here well I think I think it's designed to far it out people who upon hearing some of the evidence that you are seeking to introduce like the the you know I mean I can't give a comprehensive list here are all the the the identifications that you may here during this trial Moroccan Nation this kind of thing but to try to get at do you have a bias against somebody who identifies as a Moore or a Moroccan I suppose I wouldn't mind adding you will hear evidence in this case that some of the defendants identify as members of the moish nation or as Moroccan Americans if that and just to be clear the defendant and a website he ran it's called the rise of the Moors is there is a there is a movement in the country of like the moish but I'm not interested I'm not interested in this trial at exploring uh all the types of groups that may identify as having some connection to the historic moish people or Moroccan people it's well outside the scope of this trial I recognize that how people identify can be very important to their sense of identity and that they may want to identify in that way in some sense in this trial and that's fine I'm just trying to get at a question that captures bias against I mean maybe the way to do it is say if you heard evidence that the defendants identified as being Moroccan or Moorish you know does any of that have any special meaning for you well some people may not know what Moors are and some people frankly they may hear that and say none of this matters to me right I want to include something about the moish nation because there is um there are a variety of sort of nationalist movements all across huge number of nationalist movements um and I think there maybe jurors who if they heard morish or Moroccan would say no that doesn't mean anything to me I me I don't you know but if they hear moish Nation they mean like that sounds nefarious to me that sounds suspect or somehow you know leftwing or rightwing or whatever Wing So I want to capture that I'm inclined to say let me hear what Mr Lucha says you'll hear evidence in this case that some of the defendants identify as members of the moish nation or as Moroccan Americans have you heard of these groups well that that's sort of difficult to say um I think maybe just distill this into one question you will hear evidence in this case that some of the defendants identify as members of the moish nation or as Moroccan Americans is there anything about a defendant these identifications that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial juror in this case I think the I like it as two questions and the reason is because morish nation is a um many people may not have heard of it if somebody has heard of it uh maybe they've heard of this case like I mean it's it's such a nuanced thing that I think if somebody does know about it and is familiar with it we need some followup how about this do we hear evidence in this case that some of the defendants identify as members of the moish nation or as Moroccan American have you heard of the moish nation before I think that's fine and then the next question is there anything about a defendant's membership in the morish nation or his identification as an Moroccan American would affect your ability to be fair and a partial that works on our endol I I Commonwealth has made tried it very clear very hard to make this case about possession of firearms and not their the ideologies I I really I appreciate that we're trying to sus out bias here I don't think this question is necessary um but I disagree with that I mean the case is clearly as a matter of law is about unlawful possession of firearms ammunition body armor that kind of thing um but uh the jury that we pick has we have to be confident is gonna view it that way and if somebody has a bias against the moish nation or the self-identification of more or moroccan-american and can't therefore separate that from their evaluation of the evidence then we've defeated the purpose so I guess what I'm saying is you may very well be right as a matter of law but we need to find a jury that can follow that law so I am going to ask those two questions as modified next next question Mr Thompson that's all I have Mr rler con so um there is a question in the questionnaire about uh police credibility um I did also request the question do you think that police officers always tell the truth I would suggest that be added to the questionnaire um I I'm not gonna ask that question I really have yet to meet anyone who would answer yes to that question I I've never seen it I've never seen anybody who would say they always tell the truth I think somebody who believes that the police officers always tell the truth would answer yes to question 14 right in other words unless they also believe that that civillians always tell the truth meaning that they can't you know everybody always tells the truth so I wouldn't be tempted I wouldn't be tend to believe one over the other um that I think is purely hypothetical so I I'm not going to ask I don't like to raise possibilities that I myself view as absurd which is that anyone thinks that police officers always tell the truth I do think there are plenty of people who think police officers are more likely to tell the truth on average than civilian Witnesses and that's why we ask these questions but I'm not GNA ask that that's really the only I think the only thing I wanted to mention other than reminding myself when we talked about the after the jury the jury completes the questionnaire um I'm just want to make sure I understand if there's a question I had put in my in my proposed forer questions it's not in the questionnaire you may ask it on yes you may I didn't see any questions that you listed that I think would be improper for individual for deer I just they're not questions I think belong on a questionnaire but um the reason for that is I try to keep the question I mean I may or may not have succeeded in this case but I try to keep it short enough that people they don't lose focus and start just answering questions with SW uh sort of carelessly that they actually focus on the entire questionnaire so I TR it's sort of a desire to be comprehensive without being so long that it's you know you get bad bad responses um just to go over the procedure and I will hear from the Commonwealth on the questionnaire but since it's in my mind what I do is they they fill out the questionnaire once they're all filled out they're brought back to miss Noble Miss Noble starts flagging questions that require followup I take it you all understand what that means like do you have any are you aware of any bias yes requires followup no doesn't require follow-up um I then get them one by one as the jurors come in and what I do is I read off to the parties these are the questions on the questionnaire that require followup uh you'll have obviously one there so you can see what those questions are I don't make copies for the attorneys just out of concern for the environment it's a ton of copies it also slows things down but if at any point any Council wishes to see a particular questionnaire either because you're confused about the questions I'm reading off or you just want to sort of spot check that we're catching all the right ones for whatever reason just let me and Miss Noble know and you can take as much time as you need to look over individual questionnaires then I go through the questions that require followup I won't go through my whole process but I usually start with the hard ship question because if if there's a legitimate hardship there's no point in discussing any of the other things and we can move quickly along um and then I try to go sort of in order of How likely the question is to exclude the jury so whatever most likely it is to exclude the juror I'll go to that next um and I ask followup on all the questions uh that they that require followup uh and then I generally if I'm going to EXC use somebody for cause or for hardship I check with the attorneys to see if there's any objection I always do and if there's no objection then I um I'm sorry after I do the follow-up questions I turn to the attorneys for their follow-up questions and you have uh three minutes and one and a half minutes each but again I'm not going to stop you if you're getting it something um once you've had a chance occasionally I will ask a followup based on your followup not usually but every so often and then I'll e e excuse the jury after Consulting with you or the juror or I will declare the juror preliminarily uh indifferent and I'll look to whoever was questioning first for challenge for cause then the other side and then Perry Challenge and then the other side and I switch from um and as far as the defense goes if you want to switch each time and you know one of you go first and then the next one go first I'm just going to say defense and I'll leave it up to you how to allocate your order okay um all right Commonwealth on the substance of the questionnaire I have nothing further on a judge okay all right so we've got the questionnaire I'll edit it I'll try to get it the final draft out to uh both sides I don't require a followup but if you want to follow up if you Spott anything that wait a minute judge you said you going to do this and you didn't uh please feel free to bring it to my attention of course um how about the Implement script you had a question your honor I think page looks like page two look like you had a in you a comment some of the defendants were carrying loaded large capacity semi-automatic rifles and I just I saw a note that you had a question about that yes I was trying to understand if both Mr ladimer abdulla Bay and Mr Perez Lucha L are alleged to have carried uh weapons I just couldn't remember so uh Mr ladimer definitely it's on the video throughout uh Mr um Perez in terms of handling weapons there's a moment where he handles Mr Latimer's weapon there's also um he appears to have some kind of rifle or something slung over his shoulder when he's talking to Mr ladimer but you can't identify what it is so and and he discusses the Firearms with Mr ladimer if that gives any information to the court that answers the Court's question so I'm trying here i i i there wasn't a huge there weren't large areas of disagreement on the on the statement of the case to be read to the jury but there were some and it occurred to me both defendants were dressed in camouflage clothing and wearing body armor I think is my recollection from looking back at my notes but I was trying to figure out what to do since we have only two defendants I was a little concerned about saying some of the defendants because they're from the juror's point of view there's only two even though they might perceive that the others were charged separately were not going there I mean one thing that the way the cork addresses is refer to Mr ladimer by name and other individuals present with him just leave it at that are the uh are the attorneys con content with that formulation that's fine with me I just say where it's not clearly referencing Mr Abdula and Mr Lucha L to just say the susp well but that suspects is that's that creates more that creates confusion I think I could see a jury saying or potential to saying who are the suspects are they these two are they other what if I say um they Trooper encounter right now I have Trooper encountered the defendants which is a little confusing because are we talking about these two defendants or other people too um so what if I said the indictments alleged on such and such a date Massachusetts Place police Trooper encountered a group of men just after 1:00 a.m. that's fine uh the men were dressed in camouflage clothing and wearing body armor and then say some of the men were carrying loaded large capacity semi-automatic rifles is the Conwell content with that sorry I'm just looking at the rest of the language here yeah I may have to adjust some more language after that I mean if you're going to if you're going to if the Court's going to refer to the group as the man of the individuals I think just needs to be made clear that the Comm is alleging that two defendants here in this courtroom part of that group right and I don't think that that will be any I don't think that's I don't think the jur is likely to be confused about that fact since there are the two people sitting here but as long as that's clear I think the Court's proposal is fine and then go to the indictments further alleged that the defendants with other men wearing similar chal Plage outfits and body armor were standing near two vehicles because that's not confusing um and then indictments alleged that after the defendants ref refus police instruction I guess we go back to the men there because it's alleged that all of them one way or the other refused and then at the end I can say that the indictments further alleged that neither of the defendants nor their companions had a license to carry firearms all right I think that takes care of it there's one other factual correction need be made yes um in the original it was at the bottom of page two it just needs to be made clear that I believe only Mr ladimer or Mr Abdula Bay is charged with the false name giving a false name I believe Mr Perez is not that's correct I was gonna bring that up too okay let me see here where the bottom of page two which lists out the charges and goes onto the top of Page Three and giving police a false name following in arrest so that would is just out to Mr abdulla Bay all right um okay so they're charged with possession all that then I'll stop at possession ammunition and say additionally Mr and I can't remember am I already into calling them just by their yeah okay so Mr abdulla Bay is charged with giving police a false name so I I they've both been charged with all these offenses up to and unlawful possession of ammunition additionally Mr Abdula Bay is charged with giving police a false name following an arrest that address all right anything else that either party wishes to raise on this there are um so we were just talking about kind of the semantics of descendants and Men the this uses the word companions a number of times and also at one point uses the word Associates um you point me to where so during that time two of the defendants companions were arrested approximately one half mile away so in my suggestion which I I think the the Commonwealth and I did have an agreed to statement but maybe I misremember that um not in the final pre-trial memo in the final pre-trial memo which is what I was referred to on Monday There's the Commonwealth version and then there's your version in which Mr Thompson joined and they're very similar but not identical I thought there was something that attorney R lohen filed with judge Fier back in all right well if if so I don't in any event it's not before me um so what what I had proposed was that it would say during that time two of the other men present were arrested approximately one half mile away is that satisfactory to you so instead during that time two of the defendants companions were arrested approximately one half mile away it says during that time two of the other men present sure were arrested all right I made that change and then similarly two sentences from there it says after the defendants and their companions eventually surrendered again I would suggest after the defendants and the other men any objection that con no you're on so I made that change too and then there's one more um think it's the last sentence of that paragraph the indictments further alleged that none of the defendants or their companions it now it says the indictments further alleg that neither of the defendants nor the other men present oh right we already addressed that no I so I'm just changing companions to the other men present Conwell that's acceptable okay anything else from any either side on page four there's a reference to uh Mr Massie as well from the council section yep it's a just before the trial schedule and length heading not seeing that over Mr Massie well I wouldn't make since I I don't give this to the jurors I only read it I would catch it but thank you so so for the defendants it'll say thank you the only other thing I was going to mention which you know of course the the court will make the right decision about this um just in terms of timing where it says you know could last through Thursday June 13th or even into the beginning of the following week I just highlighted that into the beginning of the following week because of you know my fear of how many people we may lose I know we had discussed the schedule I will tell you I am afraid believer I'd rather lose a few people that we didn't need to lose because they have some travel plans in that following week where we don't think we're going to get to then I would to seat those people because we didn't tell them it was going to go that long they said you told me it was yeah like I didn't bring up my travel schedule because you said it was going to end by then so I'd always rather expand it out and what usually happens is that people say well I had travel like the week after that and I'm like you're fine we're not you know and then it's been it's been fully vetted okay yeah nothing else for me okay um I do want to ask the parties input into an issue I'm putting together my pre-charge in combination with my final instructions which are just at the beginning stages I think I have two options on the pre-charge one is not to give not to tell them any elements of any offenses just to tell them these are the offenses or to give them the element of the lead offense that is UN possession a large capacity firearm without a um license to carry our FID card and then say there as to the other charges there are sort of other similar elements but I'm going to I'm going to hold off there's no way I think it makes sense to instruct them on all the elements of all the offenses in a pre-charge so I guess I'd like to know from both sides if you have a preference as to whether I charge on the lead I mean whether I give them the elements of the lead offense or simply I'm inclined not to do any instruction at all because the the elements of the offenses are not exceptionally complex there are aspects of them that may be a little complex perhaps but in general it's possessing some a firearm a high-capacity firearm without a license FID card is fairly comprehensible to most jurors so but I'm interested in if anybody has a strong opinion one way or the other I I think if you were to instruct on the elements of uh the 10m offense a large capacity I think that would be fine if there's going to be a pre-charge based on the nature of the case think some preview of of the general concept of joint venture aiding in a betting I think it would be wise to to include that because you're giving them a preview as the elements I think it's fair that they get a preview that of of how it works when there's multiple involved parties and I'm not saying that's to be a full-blown zenetti charge but I think I understand I I generally wouldn't give a full-blown but it's sort of a preview defense from that point on either issue do I instruct on the lead charge the elements of the lead charge should I instruct on joint joint venture I would ask the court to at least give the instruction on the uh for Mr B the position of a large capacity weapon 10m well so he has two 10m he has a large capacity weapon and in the feeding device right um but at least as to the large capacity weapon um I don't have a opinion about so you agree with the Commonwealth that I'm now hearing from the Commonwealth and and uh Mr abdulla Bay yes charge on give them the elements of 10m so they at least are thinking about generally how elements work um and you don't have a strong feeling about joint venture corre and uh to the extent I mentioned elements in my my opening at least the jurors would would know yeah no I what elements are I totally understand why one side and or the other might want it I just um I just want to hear your clots before I make a decision Mr raisler con I also agree that it would be helpful to do the um 10m instruction I disagree that it would be helpful to do the joint venture portion essentially because I I think it does get very complicated um and I think we're going to see at the end of trial if in fact there is evidence of the joint venture but I understand if the court feels it is important to give a preview at this point I I can see the argument for giving a very scaled down joint venture instruction because it seems to me that Commonwealth is going to argue probably fairly strenuously and broadly that this is a joint venture and that therefore there's liability as a for aiding and a betting as well as principal liability um and to the extent that I can also anticipate a defense that leads with some notion of guilt by association or just because somebody's in a group of people doesn't mean that they are have any kind of you know that they have the same Criminal Intent as everybody else um which I could imagine um I think it will be helpful for the jury I do agree with Mr Vance it would be helpful for the jury to understand the law that at least in Broad Strokes the law that governs those arguments so that they can at least have heard of it when they're assessing I imagine this may come come up in openings um and certainly it's going to start coming up I would guess in cross-examination in a hurry so um I'm inclined to I will instruct on 10m since all parties agree I should and then I think I will give a very sort of what's it 10,000 foot view of joint venture I'm not going to get into the Weeds on it because I want to see where the evidence goes but I will give a general the notion that if you make certain findings you may but are not required to find that people are acting in concert you know this sort of a what do you call a headline of zenetti kind of instruction and and I'll be able to give it to you ahead of time so you can critique it okay so I I just want to make sure I'm clear in my own head that when we're having our charge conference at the end of the trial um as opposed to like what the elements are on 10m assuming that hasn't been required out that the jury is going to get that that's going to be a discussion and your honor is going to make a ruling on whether it's appropriate to give the aiding and abetting instruction at that time well here's what I'll say if if the evidence that's presented by the Clos of the commonwalls casee for example doesn't support an inference of joint venture aiding and a beding then I wouldn't give that instruction if the evidence view in the light most favor of the Comm wall supports an in could support an inference the jury could find be unreasonable doubt that there was a joint venture that would give the instruction what the exact content of the instruction would be I suppose it's up for discussion given what the evidence is but that's why you should review my pre-charge to make sure that there's nothing I mean I I don't think the pre-charge is going to be specific enough that you're likely to be able to sort of say you shouldn't say this you shouldn't say this because we don't know what the evidence is going to be but I get to the extent you're asking is The pre-charge Binding like once I instruct on it that's a finding that there's going to be a joint venture instruction no if the evidence doesn't support it they won't hear about it given that it's practically a little difficult for me to I mean the the col case would have to be very different from what they've outlined so far for me to see that that's likely um which doesn't mean that you can you answer the question yeah perfectly all right okay just so it's clear but I do encourage you to look at the pre-charge carefully especially the case specific part I mean the other stuff is kind of boiler plate and you know it gets you hear it in every case and you know but look at the case specific things uh carefully um so that if you feel like I've gone too far for example with a joint venture instruction you can say they judge don't there this is too specific for this stage of the case I'll listen to you on that or or you misstated the law which of course I will listen to you on that too right okay and can I ask one more question that's what we're here for are there any specific any specific in the pre-charge related to like the nature of evidence in a codefendant trial I mean so far I know nothing has come up yet that is being admitted as to one defendant and not as I generally I generally don't go into that level of detail because I don't think they can follow it they've never met most of them never seen a trial before they don't understand defendant single defendant versus codefendant um what I think is the proper approach to that is that the first time that happens in a trial I think I'm ired to give a contemporaneous instruction that explains this evidence has been introduced against Mr Lucha L but it is not you may not consider an evaluating a case of Mr AB OB or you know language that effect or vice versa give the contemporaneous instruction and then repeat the instruction in the final instructions but I don't I try to look at it from the juror's point of view there's only so much they can take in and I think the pre-charge as we give it now runs the risk of being too much information that it's hard for them to process so I don't want to add things unless it's obvious to me that it's something they ought to know which is the category I put joint venture in this case that there is a broad principle but no I don't think so okay I would encourage you obviously to remind me if evidence is introduced against Mr Abdullah Bay but not against your client for example that I should give that instruction and I think it's sometimes successful to give it more than once or to give it each time you can give it less you can say I as I've told you before this is one of those situations where but um I'm perfectly content to give that instruction every time the issue is right every time the issue comes up okay thank you anything else uh not on the jury selection okay anything else on anything no I just wanted to make a quick record judge I U I filed Discovery notice 11 this afternoon with the clerk I had copies to council um in that is just a very quick sum of the McFarlan inquiry we've done for all the law enforcement Witnesses I've given copies of that information to council um and we'll supplement that should anything else come up I think some of the information was already known to council but um I have a copy for the court of Court wants to look at it I would ask that it not be filed but I don't need to look at it unless and until an issue is raised with respect to it but I appreciate you're letting me know that it's out there that the issue is is there um the discovery notice just it really kind of uh listed all the things that have come up in various emails that we've sent back and forth and just haven't been uh you know documented in the file anywhere sounds it sounds prudent of you to do anything else from anybody's side okay so uh I ask you to be here by 9: tomorrow um it's rare that we actually have jurors ready at 9: um but if you can be here for sure by 9: if if you need it see me for anything before we bring jurors up let Miss Noble know of course I'll I'll come out otherwise we'll plan to get started as soon as we have jurors thank you do you think this show is educational yes it'll drive people to read books and thanks for hanging out with us infactor frauds make sure you hit the Thumbs Up Button you're subscribed and ring that Bell for notifications and leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think and a huge thank you to all of our Factor frauds channel members Wan Nishi thank you if you'd like to become a member click on the link in the description or click join right next to [Music] subscribe now if you're still hanging out thank you I appreciate you all hit the Thumbs Up Button make sure you're subscribed ring the bell and leave a comment in the comments session tell me what you think until next time I'll see you soon