improperly attacked and the second problem is that mr jesus testimony was improper and bolstered by court and by the state this was a closed case and that's why this waiters recollection of the event was credible she claimed that he had made sexual advances towards her and when she let him know that she did not want to have anything to do with the as she put up her hand and he grabbed her up at this house he had purchased alcohol because women were going to be there he goes over to the apartment he is told by his friend sloan there there's a woman coming over and he says  had testified to and what about the officers testimony about jesus statements when he came into the car up right after this incident happened he said the first thing that she said was sexual contact between the two of them before anything happened so why is he immediately defending himself against some kind of sexual conduct the first thing out of out of his mouth and the jury don't we have a close case here and there is evidence then the jury could go either way but the for we didn't consider this other evidence that we were complaining about the just showing up in the uniform accomplish the same problem i mean he didn't have to show up in his uniform you know did there was you know request that he not show up in his uniform i mean we're seeing a soldier and he's going to testify to where he's been and what he's done and even if it's limited  we need to give her a new trial and the way we do that is through the plane the plane here session to wait and that's what is there and you know one of the police officer testifies he's of course you know my re he does have the naval reserve and all that kind of stuff going to classes and everything it is surely that's just irrelevant and there's no prejudicial impact against the family who are against the state one way or the other because it's not relevant or probative this way it doesn't come in i mean we want the jury to be determining the case based on the evidence of the incident that she's charged  determination her credibility was attacked improperly his credibility was a problem raised and here we have a jury now not just the evidence about he said she said she said she belly and second of all it was invited well that's a textbook mistake by the prosecutor then because your closing argument supposed to be about the evidence not about what was that or not the state will know it was about the evidence what it was in sale or any cooking in it he works hard he needs ok for him to go on weekends and enjoy himself and relax and party and drink and he also said and if the defense counsel says that mentioned that and he mentioned that will said somebody is coming over so i decided to wait and see if she was good looking all right but next then in closing argument the state says she has an island tendency way it was put a violent tendency that would indicate a propensity guarding that would be improper i would argue that it has to be in taken in the context of speaking specifically of the two instances and those who've gone through during the evidence in closing out and of all how they were similar about how they happened that this woman and that's why i believe there's no doubt that this evidence was admissible for motives purposes because the purpose is to show that argue propensity which is what happened well all the question of the instruction is there in my brief is forfeited because the defendant is responsible for it during the instructions that he wants  they sent for identity in order but they didn't highlight motive they said identity or in the work they were not clear so the judge sort of decided right now they want the evidence if you want the evidence if it's your this it you can't argue propensity evidence if they give a battery we're using prior evidence of force against the victim honor but this a different issue than the instructions that doesn't mean that we're responsible for giving the instructions and i again would say that the law indicates otherwise because if that were the case it wouldn't be forfeited when the defendant doesn't give the instructions did by introducing the fact that he by the the court by saying you know your services your service is a journalist is as important and being a soldier or something of that nature well not quite it is second to they're thinking well you know they could take it the senate is a message this is one of our our citizens out there playing for us tonight with that is a very very common there's very little statement and try to reinforce on the jury reports of their service to the direction of their freedoms isn't that really what happened here yes and so if you're here what you're suggesting is that the state took improper advantage of it including argu base is right there the chances of somebody from the navy being called in to be a witness in a trial there is higher than they were asked to do something else and he said you know to show the jurors how you know the value of their service and what it means to say to a company and that would be appropriate i understand what the judge is trying to do but the jurors are going in there and they're hearing this from the judge you know this is the situation she didn't like him and he didn't like her because they were calling each other names and that is relevant to this and would show not only identity but i think could have shown inten