particular argument personally offensive and i think that it would not advance your case to suggest that somehow or other this particular judge should be looked at any differently than any other juror no that's not questions to be clarifying questions but there are some that i'd like to have you focus on which ones you think they are where an argument can clearly be made that they vacuum that's going to turn it into a credibility issue or one because otherwise the only time i've been in a situation where the you know trying cases where the judge asks the questions and if you think i understand you're going to be more give the benefit of the valve to the district court a district court who is confused as to whether the person really has seen or was in a position of saying are you saying it's prejudicial for the judge to ask a and that the prosecutor hasn't brought it out but i think as a as a judge that there is reason to believe that the witnesses actually lonny are you suggesting that that the district judge just have to sit on that and let that happen let the jury being misinformed misled by the witness who was clearly line and that the judge should not ask any questions that would tip the prosecutor to explore for example there were the questions of a couple of the witnesses were judged real asked about who they had spoken to outside the court room in advance of their testimony the kind of questions that you would ask normally if you were a prosecutor trying to test whether the this group of people had collaborated in their testimony the prosecutor hadn't seen fit apparently to do the judge real then find out did you talk to anybody about your testimony and then let the prosecutor comes back to go by the way tell us about your contacts with the defense investigator now posit the judge real believes that these people had all gotten together and concocted a common story as are all family and friends and the prosecutor was doing a lousy job of bringing that out in his view and he what about of the shoe is on the other foot that the judge is beginning to get the idea that this particular friend is getting railroaded and needs a little bit of help and because of poor representation by counsel let's say and engages in what you suggest is the same kind of prejudicial kind of question enough if we don't have an opportunity to review that because presumably that defendant doesn't receive ineffective assistance of counsel that the government has the same right to have effective assistance from the prosecutor and he had to protect that right now but so then why  judge real and there are other good reasons why it should be reversed whole and the examination of the witnesses and we do know that it's apparent that most of the questioning was on clarifying issues and the question was largely on collateral issues even if we look at the questioning of the defendant himself the court questioned him as for particular areas payments that he made to the victim we had were her family which when the jury was instructed on the law they were told that cases it was important that the questioning of the defendant was on the issues and that's a court proud inconsistency in the defendant's testimony about what was at the heart of the defense here there were no questions that trigger your follow up on the larry the defense investigator where he asks the sheema about contacts on this case outside the court minute triggers you start asking about whether which i read is questions and that when the defendant said that he did understand the court then didn't follow up and and pursue that line of questioning in terms of the impact on the jury of this question there that that one area that has brought it about pursuing the question about the possible collusion was the one area we did follow up on the question that we never argued any collusion didn't get anywhere with that one questioning parties opportunity to ask questions and then after the court's questions he also gave the parties the opportunity to follow the dish up questions so that there could be no impression that he was leaving with a witness of the  the victim the defendant treated her as a family member and the defendant's story was done was different when he testified she said that she was important to him in that he spoke to her only through his wife that was the primary inconsistency among the defense witnesses that was collateral question but that's my observation of so but what i'd like to you can come back to that if you want but i was going to ask my other question and i've forgotten what it was so i know what it man that came out during the cross examination what was the purpose of pushing for addresses apartment with one who are married to another with you brought that out for some reason that's relevant to the her testimony well we have asked her on cross examination about not living with the line and did not come close to doing what has happened and the other cases he did not know point to the comments on the credibility of any of the witnesses or comment on the evidence at no point did he interrupts counsel credibility of the witnesses was done during the direct and cross examinations and the credibility call in this case came down to issues that were not only stated from the from the defen cocking down to the fact that the defense witnesses were friends and family members of the defendant the defendant claimed that the victim was happy and treated well until six weeks before she ultimately laughed and that it was because of this relationship supposedly