first issue in this case especially as i see it about the tensions between the district court's scheduling order and practices vs the government's interpretation of operating  this case that their district court set a discovery deadline of june eighth of last of last year the trial was set for july twenty fifth on july nineteenth the government produced to the defense a report from morning after on this to watch the testify but this this first report from from the f b i comes and then the tribal investigator goes off to find out well how can this be and we get that report two new statements concerning the underwear the morning of trial and that the prosecutor told the court she'd have them for a few days and that's troubling that why didn't we get them right away you know we get we get hit with them with one or about to start evidence for continuance right that's correct i yeah i think i would have no i know what the ruling was then and took the position that discretion was the better part of valor at that point but you're right there is no we can't speaking hypothetically but when you've been released been a better position to come to this court this morning i was prejudiced there were some things i could have done and i asked for the more  asked to have excluded that they couldn't at the last minute all of sudden they have an explanation as to why you know we get told a week before trial there is no d n a evidence no i want to go we want to go to trial i mean that my client had been locked up already he didn't want to more delays and then we give him the i keep saying morning yeah what it may have actually been at noon but anyway when we're getting ready to start the trial with a here's here's our explanation now conviction according to testimony you have a nineteen year old man and this is a delicate topic but he's fully rousey age and sexual intercourse gets pulled away s time to get his pants up and there's no for him there's no fifty family members and friends which in a small community like the rocky boy reservation i believe the significance of it and then they consider m the federal prosecutor here did not violate will sixteen you know i've heard that before well it will it is true in this case i can't speak for any other cases but what happens here in the united states is now waiting for the d n a test to come back to determine whether we believe a rape occurred we have eyewitness testimony from the brother the next morning they take her into the hospital they report it to the police that's why he's charge rape the d n a is sent off and then granted it's close to the time of trial if it comes back and it doesn't match up that they've got some semen but they can't figure out who it's from and they have d n a that is from a family member which is very strange and the assistant u s attorney in this case just bang gives it to defense counsel because she has to that's great but then the f b i expert talks with her about  and says you know this is really odd that we have d n a in here it's not from the victim but it is because it's d n a they can tell it's from somebody who's related one if you go see if she changed her clothes so that's what they did they went out and interviewed the victim and the young lady you helped her change her clothes that night and sure enough she put on her mother's underwear and there was a couple day delay and if if anyone had asked the prosecutor at trial why there was that  lay it's because over the weekend she confirmed without giving those statements to the two witnesses she confirmed herself that that's in fact what happened and then the day of trial under no obligation by rule witness testimony from the brother jury clearly believe that the actions of the victim and the brother the victim's friend nicole are all consistent with them concluding that she had been raped by mr watson and and that's what the jury believed to compare this case to what judge reinhardt said in his dissent in the form case his absurd that case involve the single testimony of a child who was allegedly molested at the age of seven or nine and judge r pointing out that when we have a total denial by an adult and a very young child as the sole witness that is a very troubling situation well that is not even close to this case so the sufficiency argument  granted high high little is that is that a fair to picture wasn't tossed that's going with you certainly not exactly in the middle i would i would point out that there is a very there is a very poignant letter statements by victims and other witnesses pretrial as you are frequently running the risk that they will be approached by either the defendant or people who are sympathetic to the defendant and it will cause them problems and the problems may not rise to the level of obstruction of justice but in a very small town it can frequently lead to ostracisation and embarrassment and and that's what the victim's mother was reporting to the court and that's why we have those policies and that's why in certain types of cases the government is perfectly entitled to decide that it will not turn these things over because it doesn't have to because it is serving policy such as that in this case the prosecutor erred on the guy he rides and rodeos and he helps out and whatnot and and you know that's i've prosecuted some persons that i thought were all around good guys but they also happen to break the law so it's not terribly uncommon the court obviously thought that the circumstances of the case the fact that he still denied it and his record or into the the witnesses ok trial started on a wednesday what happened on monday and tuesday and we don't get these these new statements and then also judge judge hans discussions of both counsel after  practice and that's that's how we got in my opinion i caught the last minute with this report i think the the letters of support were significant certainly he's not a juvenile but a very young man and this is a very long time go away