Should the Court impose a prison sentence, Ms. * respectfully urges the Court to grant her bail pending appeal. Ms. * does not present any risk of flight, nor does her release on bond pending appeal pose any threat of danger to the safety of any other person or the community. Rather, she seeks vindication in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and possesses several substantial questions of law that are likely to result in either reversal or an order for a new trial. Consequently, Ms. * urges the Court to allow her to continue to remain free on bond.

A. Applicable Legal Standard--A Two Prong Test. Section 3143(b) of Title 8, United States Code, sets forth the legal standard applicable to the issuance of bail pending appeal. That section creates a two-prong test. The code section reads, in the pertinent part, as follows:

Release or detention pending appeal by the defendant. -- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term or imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds --

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under §"3142(b) or (c) of this title; and (B) that the appeal is not for the. purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, [or] an order for a new trial[.] 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).'-

B. Ms. * Poses Neither a Flight Risk Nor a Danger to the Community.

After the jury rendered it's verdict, Ms. * was remanded into custody. Shortly thereafter, however, the Court did release Ms. * on bond pending sentencing. By allowing her to post bond, the Court has already determined that the first prong of § 3143(b) is met: that Ms. * has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is neither likely to flee nor pose a danger to the community. Since there are no changed conditions, the only relevant inquiry is whether she satisfies the second prong.

C. Ms. *s Appeal Raises Substantial Questions of Law Likely toResult in an Order Granting a New Trial.

Barbara * satisfies the second prong of the §"3143(b) analysis: her appeal "raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal [or] an order for a new trial[.] 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B)(I) and (ii). As used in this statute, a "substantial question" of law or fact is one that is fairly debatable" or "fairly doubtful," while the phrase "likely to result in reversal" refers to the "type of question that must be presented." United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Montoya, 908 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1990). The exceptions set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(2) do not apply to the counts of conviction in the instant case. See 18 U.S.C.

§§"3142 (f) (1) , 3143 (b) (2) .

Where such a question is raised on appeal, if a favorable result on that question "is likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial on all counts of which imprisonment has been imposed," the defendant has satisfied the second prong of the §"1343(b) analysis. Handy, 761 F.2d at 1283. Ms. * need not demonstrate that she will prevail, or is even likely to prevail, on appeal for "Congress did not intend to limit bail pending appeal to cases in which the defendant can demonstrate at the outset of appellate proceedings that the appeal will probably result in reversal or an order for a new trial." Id. at 1280. All that is required is a finding that if the "substantial question is determined favorably to the defendant on appeal, that decision is likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial of all count on which imprisonment has been imposed." Id. at 1281. Thus, the court need not find that Ms. * is likely to prevail on appeal. See Id. Ms. * has raised substantial questions of law in her motion for a new trial. And should the questions be determined favorably for her, there almost certainly will be a reversal of both counts of conviction.

Ms. * raised substantial issues in her new trial motion. Should they be denied, these (and other) issues will be raised in her appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She has established that the Court erred by failing to notify counsel and seek input in formulating a response to the jury's deadlock note. Should the Court of Appeals determine that the error is not harmless, her convictions will be overturned.

Similarly, Ms. * has pointed out numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct that infected the trial. Again,should the Ninth Circuit determine that she was prejudiced by this misconduct, both counts of conviction will be reversed.

D. Ms. * Does Not Seek Bail Pending Appeal for Any Improper Purpose Such as Delay.

Finally, Ms. * is not interested in filing an appeal for any dilatory purpose. She has always accepted the Court's rulings, even when they have been over objection, has always appeared in court as ordered, and has always followed every condition of release imposed by the Court. Ms. * is more than prepared to suffer any punishment the Court chooses to mete out. She wants nothing more than to put this whole nightmare behind her. She has no interest in delaying her punishment, other than to vindicate her rights in the Court of Appeals. Because she has a very strong likelihood of prevailing in her appeal which raises significant issues of law, Ms. * respectfully urges the Court to permit her to remain on bond pending appeal.

C:\wwwfpd\appbond.wpd