 The defendants argued : ( 1 ) that the indictment should have been quashed because of the absence of women from the grand jury ; ( 2 ) that the indictment was not returned in open court ; ( 3 ) that the indictment was duplicitous , inconsistent , and vague ; ( 4 ) that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict ; ( 5 ) that the trial judge should have granted a continuance , rather than appoint Stewart to represent Kretske ; ( 6 ) that Roth should have been severed from the other defendants ; ( 7 ) that the reports of the Alcohol Tax Unit were hearsay ; ( 7 ) that the two government exhibits not admitted into evidence were sent to the jury during its deliberations ; ( 8 ) that Glasser had been cross @-@ examined on matters not pertinent to the charge and not within the scope of his direct examination ; ( 9 ) that the cross @-@ examination of U.S. Attorney Campbell had been unduly restricted ; ( 10 ) that evidence beyond the scope of the bill of particulars had been introduced ; ( 11 ) that there was insufficient corroboration of the accomplice testimony against Kretske ; ( 12 ) that certain testimony of Alexander Campbell was erroneously admitted ; ( 13 ) that the admission of various prejudicial evidence had the cumulative effect of denying the defendants a fair trial ; ( 14 ) that the trial judge 's cross @-@ examination of witnesses and other comments crossed the line into advocacy ; and ( 15 ) that the trial judge should have granted a new trial because of the exclusion of women from the jury pool . 
