of the anti terrorism ineffective death penalty statute instead the court is faced with what with all due respect should be a very disturbing questions series of facts and i suggested in particular this brothers had come up in the context of the expert in the defense had brought it up and so it wasn't that kind of coming out of thin air when the prosecutor made her remarks and so the difficulty i have is whether in the backdrop of having already been introduced to the members brothers the additional comment that she may have made about basically being tutored by the end as brothers in terms of the  trial it was the fact that the expert had a connection to that case and that in fact she had been presented with her credit as counsel equally vigorously and attacking that as for in the previous prosecution but it's the insinuation the connection and quickly pointed out in her argument and written response to the defense's proposition of that point that that evidence was not been received for that purpose the trial of court didn't take a response from the position its instructions were permissive and the defect if you will  just one before the trial in our october fifteenth right before trial on his application for fine stating that the difference still is not prepared and the that it needs these monies to go to russia and so forth that application is denied there is a money history behind examining the expert about not taking into account some tests that might indicate the presence of a lingering and expense lawyer when the prosecutor brought that question up through her questioning the defen and to the extent there was already problems with post traumatic stress defense basically the males and the coughing now isn't it because prosecutors say any could get up in jail with these other guys who we are you know from the newspapers are bad guys of what had gone on in the trial specifically the references to the menendez brothers had insinuated itself into the case in some way and they after i think kind of lost any explosives the fact that it otherwise might have had a theory mark had been  basis was that through through cross examination admission an admission by the defendant that the defendant had acknowledged lying in the past had knowledge committing perjury in the past and the circumstances of the  precedents and can reach the underlying constitutional question about whether or not the prosecutors reference violated the confrontation clause i think the i think the fact of the matter is that the u s supreme court has never held that a remark  itself into the cased i think what ultimately happened was the prosecutor in making a rational argument or at or at the very least an argument that was to didn't purport to be anything think in the country that allows to be prejudicial i think it's ok for the prosecutor to to ask the jury to draw a prejudicial inference about the credibility of the defense based on evidence at trial and i think that's really all that statement ever actually was i think the remark from a prosecutor one remark from the entirety of the of those sixty five page closing arguments and read into it the worse intention and the worst effects here i think it's pretty plain that the argument never supported to to tell the jurors that the prosecutor had outside information never ported to tell the jurors that that that that anything other wasn't adequately on the record even if it were just speculation on the prosecutor's part even if the prosecutor was asking the jurors to make an argument that the record flat out just didn't support it still was in the nature of an appeal to the record after the jurors do  logical inference and if the inference wasn't there i think that doesn't make it misconduct i think it just makes it an argument that probably should fall flat on its fault on its face but it's not misconduct it's not a due process violation and under the plausible interpretation is that the number of brothers has been mentioned fortunately or unfortunately so many times during the trial by both sides that it just became an entree into meeting the legitimate point that she made to the jurors leave the record reflects that acrimonious and very constant fight over the the funding question which is underneath all of this the captain and it was my position and remain throughout the pleading the submitted to this court from the very beginning when i made a motion for to locate to get the type of records that he would seek to produce this wasn't just some wild fishing expedition he was proposing he knew exactly what he was looking for or at least where he thought he could start and