state court trial comes down to a credibility contest between the victim and the defendant often there is nothing little or nothing to really break either version  that is there's no d n a there's no other witness there's two versions which are substantially similar as to where the people were and how they were moving about in the house but the bottom line is to stanch really different as to whether there was touching in a situation like this the conduct of the parties assumes the greatest significance in the jury's determination in the matter of the defendant's testimony the most important factor which can detract from his credibility is his record of prior similar conduct and that came into issue in this case prior similar conduct which was introduced through the attorney's decision to put on dr file in the  victim's testimony the most important single thing which we can bring to the jury's attention and which can detract from our credibility is a record or prior instances of making false allegations in similar circumstances about important things that could affect the lives of the adults around her now we have argued that amanda was trying to place change her placement back to los angeles but she didn't like damage or county that she didn't seem to get along in with the people who live in amman our county she didn't like the way of life  or county and she wanted to go back to los angeles i think the timeline is significant when we look at this in light of the new evidence that came up after the conviction   this allegations surfaced now that was on her fourteenth birthday so up to age thirteen she was a citizen of los angeles legal question is whether the defendant was denied confrontation by the loss of the opportunity to impeach versus delaware the question is whether the state court misapplied or misread the record in a way that denied the defendant his right of confrontation and and as i say and we get to august of one nine hundred ninety nine we have this trial mr vick is convicted and then in the same month we have amanda writing a letter to the child protective services complaining about her stepfather by the time of mr vick's sentencing in november guess where amanda is she's in los angeles now it's been that she wasn't telling the truth that she was making false allegations against adults in order to get herself transferred back to los angeles to mit we look at what we look at the record i don't know  knows he's got a prior record and all she has to do is make this kind of an allegation and he's going to be taken away and what's more important is from her perspective is allegations yes we've also argued that it was ineffective assistance of counsel for the defense attorney to put on dr file which brought n the that's what brought in the the you might say the other side of the coin the thing that made him look a worse was a set of allegations that came up thirty seven years earlier that would not have come into t that was six years earlier and that there was an effort to get that into evidence it was excluded this court granted relief on confrontation grounds she was the defendant was denied the opportunity to impeach the girl with her prior mendacious ness now this is similar to that case the timing is slightly different because it comes up on a new trial motion rather than at the after during the trial nevertheless it's relevant this case tried it this case was tried in august of one nine hundred ninety nine and in that comes up a few weeks after the verdict now it is in twined with the verdict it is because the verdict didn't get her moved to los angeles then she makes argument she said that she's very credible but for this argument it is said that she has already been shown repeatedly to be a liar well not only is that until just an with yes  her petition of the state court record under d to section twenty two fifty four and if the if the speaker court says that their witness on the one hand is very impeachment was the real effective with that's just inconsistent they're talking out of both sides of their mouth depending on what result they want to reach that's the kind of thing that under d to this court has to be alert to because knows unquote that's not what the records that she said she said i think maybe he tried to rape me ok ok well it doesn't look to me  like this was an attempted rape and i think that story changed a little bit or was refined if she thought about it that's all it's not a heavily corroborated case i would like to reserve the rest of my a new trial motion because some sort of impeachment evidence may or may not have been developed after trial it's not a good process violation i think that's what they're trying to argue although it looks like counsel is tempting argue that the sake