DOJ-OGR-00020861.jpg

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-1426, Document 58_02/28/2023, 3475901, Page35 of 221 A-235 3152 LCSCMAXT request of the letter, but if I could mke a brief record on that, it wll not take very long. THE COURT: Okay. And so there is the record that you made yesterday at the time the question came. There is the record that you put in the letter this morning that cane in late -- early this morning that I reviewed this morning that ve just discussed. So, to the extent you're seeking a third bite at the apple, go ahead. MR. EVERDELL: I'm sinply looking to fill out the record. I understand it's been rejected by the Court. I think fromthe defense point of view, I think two things are very clear fromthis note. One is that the jury is considering whether or not they can convict M. Mixwell on the substantive offense in Count Four based solely on events that took place in New Mexico and traveled to and from New Mexico THE COURT: There are a number of assunptions in that that don't necessarily derive fromthe meaning of that letter, but I understand that is your position. MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor. And I think the second point is that they are looking at the instructions that they have been given thus far because they reference the second element of Count Four. So they're looking at that instruction and they are unclear, they are confused by those instructions. They are not sure whether or not -- those instructions don't informthemthat, in fact, SOUTHERN DI STRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR- 00020861