 is that Marchand's likely to say, well, he's going to do a type of harmless error type of analysis and say, yeah, maybe Hope Hicks falls into this area, but she was not the really key witness. And I think that even if you take Hope Hicks' testimony out, there was ample evidence for the jury to reach this conclusion. But it's going to create a new appellate decision. So the odds are still against setting aside the conviction.