process concerning this carbon copy indictment he was charged with counts of gross sexual imposition the there are three things that i think are important in connection with a great amazin the indictment was almost a four year this case was it was also the de mint against the same young lady charging rape during the same period of time he was found not guilty of that and rape sexual conduct under the law constitutes a number of things could be vegetal intercourse and all intercourse from a shell and those type of events none of the investment alleged you know the specific conduct then a particular general read the specific conduct the jury instructions gave the you know the definition constituting everything in connection with the case let me ask you i mean what is the u s supreme court issue concerning carbon copy indictments which you have here which allege the same thing you do not know what you were convicted of which particular act you have a whole range of dates but that was true and valid time is a pretty big window there wasn't yes rats i think valentine controls the issue in this case in valentine in turn relied upon russell reed the united states that valentine said the large time window was was ok in that case i guess or some other well i think they said it was ok to the extent that they reduced it from the book convictions to one that this did when it was in the district court level i think all of the convictions were thrown out when it came to this court i think they said the most of the book convictions for the same offense would be reduced to one because obviously the jury agreed on one and you have the same problem with this particular involve sexual conduct in the gross actual imposition involves sexual contact and you have you know testimony all over the place concerning what did or would did not happen in this case we do not know what particular act a particular date he was convicted of and sentenced or did that time frames in this case we didn't i don't recall what the dates in valentine were but he had almost what almost four years for your timeframe but an art case there was testimony different residences in different time ok that was  believe everything was at the same home or same residence here we have two residences something happened in one county something happened in another county we don't know which you know which one it was which he was convicted of please the court i'm hilda rosenberg representing the warden in this case deborah was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of darryl bruce a convicted sexual offender the abuse band fo years from late two thousand and one to two thousand he committed gross sexual imposition from the time this child was seven years old at the trial deborah was only thirteen there are two non issues in this case one is the sufficiency of evidence every judge that has reviewed this record has determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the three gross sexual imposition counts additionally it is well established that broad timeframes and imprecise states in sexual abuse cases are not constitutionally offended and this court rightfully excluded that issue from this case so the issue is it was the decision of the ohio court of appeals and reasonable application of clearly established supreme court lar contrary to that law and to answer judge catholic question the the a political law is found in coal versus arkansas or the lankford case which essentially says that you have the right to fair notice under the sixth amendment you have the right to know the nature and cause of the accusation and under due process requirements you have the right to reasonable or fair notice very very broad standards and the ohio court of appeals found in this case sexual imposition the testimony from the big as separated by both the dates which the mother provided in this case and the floor separate residences where the family either lived or visited the defendant and in each case the victim testified for example at the bedford house she said she was sitting on the couch  in the living room writing a movie when the defendant text her legs and bad general area of the testimony was much more specific in this case than in the valentine case  and the defendant received notice not only from the indictment and not only from the trial testimony but in this case there was a prior trial so this lucky defendant had more notice than most in the sense that he sat through an entire trial he heard the victim earlier and heard the mother testify as they did in this case and there was also discovery available  cuba represented that he provided a bill of particulars in this case there was discovery in the previous trial in the form of video interviews of the victims which were provided to the defense i believe they were provided pointed out there were multiple counts invalid time there was testimony representative counts which we don't have here we have to stink testimony of certain incidents and the court indicated in valentine that if the prosecutor had in fact delineated the different counts and explain the evidence supporting them that that would be a totally different case and in terms of this  defendant's ability to plead acquittal or conviction the next time around that really is a moot issue the government has no intention of bringing another case of sexual abuse during the same time period against this particular defendant and in fact in valentine the court indicated that the government couldn't do that so there's a specific ruling in valentine that says that and the government would decisions all but i think it's clear that the government is not going to bring another case and in any event there's no supreme court loss that would say that you have to invalidate convictions on the basis of the possibility of double jeopardy as opposed to barring future prosecutions so there's there's no precedent for that type of action  again the supreme court is very clearly indicated in both the lead case and the parker case that we may not rely on circuit court precedent fred review and only may rely on the supreme court precedent and this defend it received the notice that he was entitled to under the fair notice requirements  and in addition and i would note that the judge was very careful in his jury instructions to alert the jury that each of the counts is very distinctive and that each count had to be determined  separately and that can be found in the record at twelve dash eleven page id eight hundred fifty eight eight hundred fifty nine so that served as a further safeguard that the jury was going to look at each count separately and make its decision based on the evidence  i would also point out as judge kept ledger had indicated that the russell case is a fifth amendment case and we're dealing here with this sixth amendment and the reason that as i read valentine that valentine relied on the russell case which it could not do today was because the valentine court looked at circuit court decisions which indicated that russell was a political and after all the case law that came out of the spring court to let again and parker case which happened after valen time this court could not do that to pull in the russell case they could not rely on circuit court decisions to just a couple of points like the court to consider connection with this case number one ms rosenberg to the fact this was a second trial but the unfairness of the second trial was that the court number one why not give us a transcript or not even let us use the transcript that the prosecutor had in front of him you know to examine these witnesses not that he was entitled to a copy of the transcript they were entitled to use the transcript that the prosecutor has sitting on the desk it's a court would not allow in this case but going back to the valentine case that only involved a period of time of approximately ten months from march first nineteen ninety five to january sixteenth one thousand nine hundred ninety six and in this case we have almost a four year period which starts at the both played of the individual november twentieth nineteen ninety four when they were when the young lady was asked that anything happened on your birthday in two thousand and one she says nothing happened that particular day and that's where the indictment starts so you know h can defend these cases is almost impossible i think you know the sixth amendment tied and requires region title to know the nature and cause of the accusation he was not allowed this and i think