here my husband wants to keep me away from noise john giannone and apparently you know you manage your money better and you don't share that's correct ok at any rate mr young was convicted as the court is aware of two counts of aggravated child abuse it's our position that the evidence that was used to convict mr johns was derived from from the methodologies and sources that are known to be scientifically unreliable it was also based upon the testimony of a witness that it least on the basis of his testimony you know or appeared to be incompetent and it was based upon testimony that was not only internally consistent but also inconsistent with the known physical  through through interviewing techniques that are known to scientifically be invalid that are known to to result in unreliable statements unreliable evidence and we did that and this is what we knew we knew that taylor was removed from the house and then on a family we knew that he had stayed in foster care for about a month at the beginning of january he was interviewed by the child welfare before he was questioned by the child is the way we're going to handle this in hand because the new jersey supreme court had all of this evidence that the children i case involved multiple children multiple allegations of abuse that these children had been led to perhaps happens this is how it works i think and i think that's correct and i was going to get to that his day in in this case we were essentially blocked from one block from even presenting that sort of evidence because although our expert witness get up there in talk generally that well these are the proper procedures the fugitive used when interviewing the child he was not allowed to explain to the jury that well you know if you continually repeat these sorts of questions because you continually use child there was a point she said now your shirts why if i ask you if you're sure i say you're sure is black is that truth or a lie there's twice the child said that that's the truth even though he had just said assurance of life and it really wasn't till the lie the answer that i got back was it's just it's like when i go to the park with my brother and it made no sense simply and it wasn't even really responsive to the question and  to hold a competency hearing when you're getting answers like that there's there's i think a real in dishes that this child doesn't understand the difference between truth and falsehood doesn't really understand the purpose for h theirs when whenever it's considering the denial of an evidentiary hearing by district court which is abuse of discretion because that was that's what was being asked here essentially is to exclude evidence exclude the testimony of the child's victims and in this case it was well within the discretion of the district court to rule that as long as the children were competent any issues with respect to reliability didn't go through admission but they went to the weight that the jury would give to the child's testimony in this case it is you need to look at the hotel records to determine what happened the government does not agree with the defendant that the defendant was denied his ability to present his defense in this case but this child victims were subject to thorough and extensive cross examination the senate was allo i don't mean to be adjacent it's just hard to answer that question because i answered in this context if we didn't have the taint hearing and the results would be excluding the children's testimony why do we have  procedures i guess i don't really have a good answer your honor regarding that now and another thing used to have and you might be right earlier on but in the same conversation you said but if we're going to have hea properly to all of you what was done improperly by using that information and linking it to what the social services worker did in this case they were able to get that information to the jury would do you interview your witnesses before the before they were put on the stand including these children yes your honor and of course your interviews given the nature of testimony grandchildren that that information came out during an interview with the prosecutor and had been told in previous interviews they didn't want to tell that the jury was not allowed to know what the form of questioning from the you was the no was not allowed no for example respect to the competency of sterling in this case we need to look at the whole record not only the question that not only the reason why there was ever any issue regarding a video deposition which was clear that had nothing to do with competency the judge there's nothing in the record to dispute the judge's finding that sterling could not testify because he was afraid it was fear or nothing more than that so therefore we go that should not concern the court regarding whether he's competen change which respected as i have some uncertainty but looking at the context of his testimony including questions asked by the prosecution he was clearly a competent witness because it's not always the difference between and the all the way that i interpreted that and it was just listening to him the record clearly it's hard to say that what he was trying to say was when i go to the park with my brother when i tell my brother that i'm going to the park with them and he's not going to do it that's a lie that's how i was interpreting what he was saying there but obviously mr nest interprets it differently and and it's hard to read it from the cold record he was giving him an example of  by the judge not for the truth of the matter asserted but the government's argued that statement could be and have been admitted as an excited utterance as well and then the denial of the rule twenty nine and we believe there was sufficient evidence for the jury are there any additional questions i think there's nothing thank you very much thank you students have to provide in the motion supporting declarations of your claim the suggests something further more or say in this case i mean we may not be able i think that's where the second thing is this is with respect to the statements that they have to deal with the work product question of the so extent something that i think sort of minimizes the importance of that have and she indicated that was fact one answer that i think she said some was being consistent with the government's case i realize what that answer was that this child had never ever made any statement about white stuff i mean how we're talking about a young although the expert could say yeah these are the this is the way that you should do these sorts of can you just never was the expert able to explain to the jury that in general is it as a general class that when you don't diffuse these standards the dangers and that is something that i think despite the government's arguments in the past and even here is i don't think something that's within the common knowledge of certainly the