united states versus mccoy the court frederick ranch here robert mccord mr mccoy faced three criminal charges in a district court his trial occurred in august of two thousand and fifteen the trial took about  government called the number of witnesses the defense called no witnesses the case involving mr mccoy's possession of child pornography and also the exploitation of a minor and that he was allegedly taking pictures of the minor images were found on mr mccoy's phone however and images of the child victim however the defense was going to the actual innocence that although the pictures were on the phone mr mccord and not take those pictures mr mccoy did not know that the pictures  on his phone all right but we have a jury verdict here so what what is what are the areas you want us to address the build up to that judge was that during the course of the trial i attacked essentially the government's case by  attending to impeach the mother of the victim the mother of an victim had found the images on mr mccoy's phone and when she did so she confronted mr mccoy the mother had access to that phone mr mccoy during that confrontation apparently made some damaging admissions with respect to the phone itself and the presence of little girls pictures on that phone the mother then spoke to the daughter the daughter's initials r k d in the brief katy confirmed to the mother that mr mccoy taken the photographs the mother then it trial yes meant the mother then goes to the bethlehem police explains what happened and the bethlehem please put a wire on the mother committed a number made a number of comments which violated mr mccoy's rights the the actions of the of the prosecutor violated several rules three to fifty four and this is again with respect to the child having to testify that is what ended up happening that is what happens when you have to report these things when you go to trial and what she gets in return counsel during the course of the case i suggested that the mother's credibility was an issue and also suggested that a twelve year old boy which would be the brother of the victim had access to the telephone and therefore these people could be responsible for the photographs being on the phone the victim herself testified that it was you you your client exactly correct judge those the victim would have been not credible as well and her mother and her brother would have produced the pictures is that the defense theory i think that's an excellent argument that if you were to draw that right call it an excellent argument i'm just trying to understand whether it's your that was what you were insinuating to the jury i was in the mother or the twelve year old boy could be responsible for those photographs right you didn't have any evidentiary basis for that in their possession of the phone for a period of time all right now what's your objection to what the government said where the government said was said when i suggested that someone else could be responsible for the photographs he suggested that i made this up when she said when you don't have the law on your side you don't have the facts on your side what you do is you make it up wrench was making it up and she said to the jury rhetorical are you ok with that we're in a court of law meaning any argument that i made in defense of my client was unacceptable and they should not get tension in the argument not that they should and i'm talking about that broadly written not that they should take the argument apart as your honor just did a moment ago but that they should dismiss it and dismiss my role as defense counsel she went on to inflame the passions of the jury she told the jury that the government had come together for these children because there were other victims on the phone act was the context of those remarks was the date i get to find the other children that they were really children yes let's go back to your argument about made up i mean was there any basis in the record for thinking that the twelve year old son had produced the photographs or the mother frankly judge no no so it was made up it was it was made up  but i don't i don't care for the characterization of that i think that it was a proper attack is like you just mentioned a few moments ago well mr wrench if if if the son put those pictures on there if the mother did that's contradicted by the testimony of the victim and that's ok because we malign my character is way out of bounds she went on but you're maligning the character of the twelve year old and the mother without any factual basis is that what we're talking about that that was within permissible scope  argument i think words count judge and i chose my words carefully i suggested an alternative theory without calling anyone a liar in a courtroom particularly the eight year old and i have to say judge when the eight year old is on the stand i got that little girl to laugh i my cross examination of little girl was respectful and compassionate and completely painless i asked the questions i had to ask that young lady and i moved on with respect to the mother a little bit different in the twelve year old boy never testified additionally there's no but there's no point in the record with government points out that i missed it mistreated the mother during her cross examination never happened i asked her about a forgery and i asked her about why she lost her children she had a preposterous story that she lost her children for two years because they're on the porch that is that's absurd on its face as far as a forgery goes yes but this was all part and parcel of suggesting that she basically put her child in the care of your client in therefore it was partially responsible for the fact that your client trial and the comments which were made by this prosecutor not once or twice but at least eight times and in probably six different categories of unfair comments she inflame the passions of the jury she vouch for the government and the government witnesses she went outside the record she referred to matters in an investigative file but never introduced into evidence and she inserted her own personal beliefs into trial ultimately she testified when she said the tape  analyzed by the f b i when there was no proof of that whatsoever she actually gave the curative instruction and i know you think that it should have been a mistrial do you want to make your time's a misstep do you want to address any of your other challenges now if you would i think you've got the jew don't want to you don't want to speak to the sentence that was imposed by judge i think the papers the brief can handle that we rely a lot on our opinion in brown that that was subsequently vacated so it would seem to support your position and my overlooking conceding guilt he committed a terrible act but the child was not physically hurt not speaking to the cycle remote farm that these crimes inflict but he did not physically hurt the child and it was a single victim aside of the other images on the phone and i argument i'd like to me for general points first the statements were made during the bottle we bottle argument is not carefully scripted it's usually based on just a lee drafted or written down notes taken during a defense argument protect and attack on the government third there was no objection to any of the comments other than the one that the district court corrected and finally the evidence of guilt in this case was overwhelming unless the court has questions about any specifics like months to count three to run consecutively but one day the same set of facts no your honor they were not the the it pertained to the sexual exploitation of this victim for the purpose of producing child pornography count number three was the possession of child pornography specifically pictures of other children other than th some of whom were abused in horrific ways all right and the court at sentencing had before impact statements from some of those victims describing the ongoing the fact that victimization and the victimization of people like mccoy looking at their pictures has on their lives the second count arose from defendant mccoy being a registered sex offender at the time he engaged in the conduct charge which this conduct but it's an aggravator exact exactly run on be sufficient to keep mr mccoy incarcerated for the rest of his life so the answer is yes what i would say about the length of the sentence is this your honor the nine hundred sixty months was dictated by both the federal guidelines and in count three which were dictated by the guidelines that was the within guidelines sentence obviously the court could have sentence below the guidelines but in this case there was no reason given to the district court judge to justify that at sentencing the judge was persuaded counsel made arguments very much along the lines of once he made here that it should be an incremental that he had physically injured the child to be nice these arguments were made the judge just explained