argue that because she was disciplined by the defendant she was biased against him or something else said in the transcript  for using that she would not get to go on that trip so why couldn't you just ask her in cross examination isn't it true that you were sad at that meeting fish well i think as a as a parent of a teenager and i think that the panel probably had some parents on it and of course the jury had parents on it there's typical teenage misbehavior and we had a list of the evidence relating that typical of teenage misbehavior and the evidence from the accuser in this case was that you know she  got grounded or loss of but she indicated it was typical punishment our purpose was that this was not typical teen behavior not that she was a drug user our purpose was this wasn't going to be a punishment like it had been in the past and that in fact this sort of would have resulted in an enhanced punishment and that's what she was afraid of my question still remains trial actually it wasn't a mini trial it was going to be several many trials relating to the other person who possibly would have done this or committed the offense and battle in the court in that case th allegation and a couple of days right after the allegation why it was important because in this particular case that time frame the time frame getting into trouble with her grandparents that i on several occasions tried to the fact that there was a positive test not rather not she was a drug user whether or not she frequently are drug user but the speculation was that this was a character evidence something serious and get him out of her life because her brother got them out of her life and in fact when her brother made the allegation ended with all of the children being removed from the house except for her it was a year before her allegation and she testified that she refused to go live with her mother because she wanted to live with the free that was her decision she made that decision so in my mind i want to know why all of a sudden after you chose your prior to this you chose to go back and live with the fairies even though you get them removed what has changed what has changed between that and getting punished for everyday normal things which is what she testified to between that and this allegation she pa and got her bags she was already packed so before the school that intervened before c p s that intervened before anybody had entered she had already gotten ready to go on to washington d c she did not she did not level of specificity that you have detailed in your questions for example she never mentioned sex in fact she rejected that in her questionnaire she never  example she changed her story happened once or twice a month at trial she testified that it happened every day or every other day at trial she testified when she made a sentence in this case i'm going to spend a significant amount of time focusing on the forecourt the evidence and i think that if you're honest and are interested and based on some of the questions that were presented to this hanson but just in summary the district court did properly exclude the four for the evidence the evidence in this case was sufficient to support his conviction for the aggravated sexual abuse of a child the sentence in this case was not only reasonable but it was also mandated with respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that is premature at this point so moving to the fore for the evidence this is reversed for for are work factors that the court need to consider and whether or not to admit that evidence whether or not this victim had a particular motive to lie about sexual d abuse is certainly something that mr fr would she was not present prevented from doing so during the trial what was presented was the specific instance of misconduct relating to this drug and even in that sentence argument today she had made clear sing the drug multiple times she could get into whether or not this child was in trouble for something something severe enough that it would demand a higher level elevated punishment which would then give her a reason to want to fabricate a story and get rid of mr freeh she doesn't have to get into it all that involved a drug that specific instance it's something that's not required to make the argument that she made not only just to your honor's now but also at the trial that same argument was made she was free to explore with the victim in this case what kinds of things she got in trouble for and she asked that question and when the response was simple things that  really get into trouble for then she eventually moved on and went with another line of questioning now the district court judge in analyzing whether or not to admit  itself although he didn't explicitly stated by saying ok i don't think this meets the preponderance standard i think it's clear based on the factors whether it's relevant to a material issue if it's similar in kind and  if there is a preponderance and then you get the bouncing test based on how it seem out side the district court judge essentially was concerned with the preponderance issue and i understand that mr hanson has said whether or not drug tests with accurate or whether its results were truly whether those results it really didn't matter what they were but it does matter because if that question is going  didn't you test positive for marijuana well then it's reasonable to explore ok well how how do we know that and that would create a mini trial and at that point when the district court judge that how are we going to raise foundations for this anyway and the response was i supposed it was sent to and it was oh i believe it was one of over the counter drugs at that point the district court judge says no i'm not going to let that because it fails to meet a preponderance standard so i understand the argument that if we have a motive or we have a theory of this defense that there is a motive here we should be able to explore that miss hanson was certainly able to do that at the trial stage  n looking at the decision of the district court judge which we are reviewing here with an abuse of discretion he did properly read that evidence and one of the things that i would like you want us to consider is there was an abundance of evidence in this case and i think that goes in part to some of why this theory was an exporter little bit more whether with the victim or with the grandmother as well who testified and i think that's because the documentary evidence the forensic evidence and the testimony of the victim in this case was very detailed the documentary evidence included letters that three had written to this child that essentially were somewhat like  rubber and then we had the d n a evidence on top of it now that gets me to discussing a little bit of the deficiency of the evidence with respect to the conviction on count one for the aggravated ended two years prior she beats hell for this jury the views that she suffered from egypt all the way up until just prior to her telling a friend about it at the age of fourteen it's not  of eighty when mr freeh started in gauging and sexual acts with her the jury heard the definition of a sexual act which is an iteration of the female genital opening they had a diagram and they were able to see clearly which portions of the busy male anatomy were involved and they found after listening to her testimony here in crude whatever inconsistent these were floored on cross examination this victim having testified about retouching her language her crip trying to proper cherry attempting to have sexual intercourse with her all of that would satisfy a sexual act of a child under the age of twelve and in addition to her testimony you also do have the physical evidence as well as like i mentioned before some of that documentary evidence and while the rd piece is certainly the condom for  example not necessarily of course we're not saying this condiment been sitting in the trash for years and years but what it does corroborate and mine's credibility to the remainder of her story with respect to this abuse starting at the age of twelve investigation report looking at mr friess history the district court judge said if anything my decision is made even more clear that a guideline sentence is appropriate in this case mr friess history included a conviction at the age of nineteen for indecent liberties with a child and it's the government's position that that prior conviction would actually make it such that a life sentence was absolutely correct yes and so what you're in the trial phase i was a trial counsel in that case and the government was very careful to explore with the victim conduct that happened prior to the age of twelve knowing full well that it's an element that my jury had to feel completely comfortable and in doing so we were things like where she was living with the set up in the house with like the bedroom and things of that there were instances such as that which were also corroborated the victim testified with respect to her grandmother walking in and i do want to address think you have a couple of minutes left if there are any other specific questions i would like to just briefly address with hansen has mentioned that some of the details about could not come forth until two years after she told her friends about it and i would guess that the writers have seen child sexual abuse in the way the disclosures it's not a one time event preparing this child for trial at the age of sixteen it's a little bit different than the  st time she's discussing this with a friend that school forensic interviewer and it took quite a bit of effort to prepare her for that and she explained that she would have to talk in detail about the events that happened to her during her childhood and in order to do so she was asked to write that down it would be easier for her and in doing so that is where some of the details and things that the record what you are telling us thank you and so i i just felt that the government had to address the sort of insinuation that some of this was concocted and that the government was able to assist her in a grand theory that he assaulted her and had done so for years and all the pieces just magically fell together with respect to the condom writers and everything  out just so she could bring missing this trip to d c and it's also worth mentioning that that trip to d c she was an honors program at her school taking college courses and from what came out during the trial she was actually a very well well then thank you to both counsel for appearing in this format and the case is now submitted the court found opinion in due course that concludes the argument session or