alleges individual and cumulative trial errors i want to put in context in those areas by briefly delving into the background of this case and the defense that she was not allowed to present him was convicted based on the kind of every mother mary mary went to citibank on right at the earlier check should not have come in but all of that we agree that all of them should not have come out offense well if that's the defense then why should we not have evidence about writing checks on the account well because first of all the the november twelfth  that she was not informed until january two thousand and sixteen that there were social security proceeds in mary's account so anything before january two thousand and sixteen is not proof of theft at that point she had been told by mary by jenny her mother that the proceeds of mary's account were an inheritance that belong to jenny alone and that jenny had the right to about money as mary so i thought you had said let's go back to the checks and what i was going to say about  those the earlier checks i guess all of the checks were signed mary right that's correct and and these three that were jurist by kim kim in the name of her dead grandmother i think that's the way that they were handling the account at that time well it's problems in that we're looking at this evidence you're making the best argument again for your side of the story with this but the bottom line is it's just as easy to suggest that kim went in there signed her grandma's name to accounts and signed the back of the jacket to put money knowing full well she was taking this money annoying full well of it she was getting away with money the sole security put in there while you're on it that's why it's so important in this case that kim was precluded from presenting her defense well but just a minute first of all you're saying is there sufficient evidence so i'm trying to get to the sufficient evidence question then you're saying that the court erred in meeting the checks and i'm saying to myself it seems to me that the checks come in because of what the checks would demonstrate it doesn't come in i mean you can argue what you want about the checks but i still don't know why the district court should never admitted them well that they certainly were relevant well they were prejudicial well i disagree around i mean i think they were i don't know that it shows that she knew so surely mike but it shows that there was some reason that this account was being treated that that that illegitimately something it was dishonest a check that was purportedly signed by a dead person that you knew was not signed by a dead person well i think maybe dishonesty is too strong and i think all of this is why it's so important to the defense was preclude  putting on its case because if you put it in context that kim was dominated by her mother jenny the jenny as a holocaust survivor was extremely controlling he had financial information from kim jenny directed to him what to do and jim did what told her to do without question and then you put in context why does him would cash checks that have been signed by mary and jenny was the daughter in law of mary's arrest yeah ok but the relationship between the two of them is important and it was not allowed at trial nor was it allowed at trial that kim had actually know what i mean by the relationship wasn't allowed a trial i mean you didn't put on a defense right now and one of the reasons is because so much was precluded the kid was effectively prequel i n you never made a profit for anything for any evidence about it but he just said nothing about it's coming and yes it is so far as that is the crux of the argument i understand i don't know entirely how and how and how do you tie that up in what way does it matter what really matters your honor because it was the whole crux of her defense she admitted that she was told in january two thousand and sixteen that there was social security and she also said i was told that social security had the wrong social security number for marriage and that was confirmed by the government social security witness at trial so we know that jim in fact did have some contact because she knew information that was confirmed the trial therefore i charged with not reporting that that at least at trial she wasn't you know that the reason that it's so important is because it explains why when she accompanied mary in two thousand of them or two thousand and sixteen to citibank she  i think she did not go that far but the defense counsel in the in the the passage that you're talking about where the court excluded evidence that came in a fight social security defense counsel made the argument that we really need this  grandmother so it wasn't coming from social security is coming from some other legit illegitimate place but it's of it's a very technical defense right i don't think it's a technical defense because mary jenny told him that this was an inheritance that belong to jenny name jenny it was still jenny's money that's what ginny told him this is my money it's an inheritance from my mother in law mary and i'm giving it to you you know in writing the checks and jenny was given money that belonged to you know that it had been there were something she sneaks shaky about this account because it had been kept it in your grandmother's name all these years and checks have been written grandmother i don't think it's necessarily something sneaky shady i think it's that if you consider the whole context of tween can and jenny and also the description of jenny as a whole across arriva who was very secretive about money who was holding on to money who was concealing financial information from him i think that in that context jenny's not transferring the of the funds may not have seemed as unreasonable as it may seem to other crowd to deal with the circumstance that the statements by jenny that you wanted to offer were in the course of an interview basically one word answers reliable well i think in those cases your honor there are cases where there is something inconsistent or contradictory about the exculpatory statements or the statements are actually not exculpatory like the brother says i did it in self defense which is actually not in standard and wasn't that a call by the trial judge which is entitle to some deference well i think there are cases that were side in the brief where if the statements are reliable then the rule the role of the about defense and to present all the evidence in her case that showed the whole panoply of facts that made her defense relevant and that was not considered by the district court and that made these statements i think were relevant in that themselves but they were also important for their about it would be important i think for the trier of fact to know the history of the relationship between the mother and daughter to only understand how is that supposed to come in and what was not allowed about well that would have come in through kim and i think the end didn't testify no but i think the ruling that the court made saying kim could not testify that you notify the social security and have a what does that have to do with whether can could testify about or are about that her mother was really the one who did all this and that she was just or th would have said yes she would have been able to say and yes i did notify the way we did this the trial judge said if the door is opened by the prosecution on cross examination you can't walk through that door was there any such ruling by the trial judge not in other words you're saying that what she feared was on cross examination the government said they would say weren't you told to notify the social security administration and her answer would be yes and then on redirect you would be foreclosed from saying but didn't you because of the judge's ruling which related to the direct testimony of your client on her direct examination the judge didn't address what happens if the government is foolish enough to ask a question that might open the door no i think the court did you want to because several times during that colloquy that started on here at ninety three the government said we intend to elicit that she was told to contact us or security but we have jacked to testimony that she actually did contact social security as a relevant that happened several times and good morning your honor is made please the court victoria detail that on behalf of the united states could i impose on you to respond to that last point the last discussion that the district court judge allowed the unfair circumstances except the circumstance of allowing the government to question as to whether she was told that she should inform social security but could not if the government god an affirmative answer from her or her counsel could not bring out on redirect that she had done so is that an accurate statement of what the trial judge ruled i do not believe that it is your honor the trial judge ruled on two very specific objections first the defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony from the government's first witness the social security administration employees fees or consult as that there were flaws in the social security databases and asked two questions about the law in the social security databases the court ruled that that was not relevant defense counsel further stated that he intended to question the casey about her own accounts to notify the social security administration and the court then ruled on that specific objection now in fact when the defendant asked the court if the government would be allowed to elicit testimony regarding the cit statements of the defendant that she needed to call the social security administration the court said that she has to object at the time that that testimony is elicited and that's on page eight ninety eight of the excerpts of record now the time that the testimony w elicited the defendant actually did not object and as the core pointed out the defendant never attempted to testify she never did appear that the second time this was discussed the district that the government asked the defendant one she told her that you had to notify the social security administration the district court's rulings on what could then be admitted may have been very different because that never happened it's impossible to now determine how the district court would have actually ruled on this question that again was never brought before the district court so i don't know for zion or standard then and this is the war i was a little bit confused by on about the flaws in the record keeping system and said that was a grove and at the time i'd been in the future but it wasn't at the time and made one other objection as a relates to what could be asked of an agent about what the defendant had said and made a ruling there that's the best that there was here that's exactly right on or and in fact the defendant regardless of th notification issue the defendant could have testified about a number of issues that she says she was precluded from raising for example she could have testified about the allegedly controlling relationship with her mother and she could have testified that her mother told her the money in the account belonged to her and that in fact would not have been hearsay because it would have been for the effect on the listener which is defend she could have testified that she never saw the bank statements because her mother kept them from her she could attempted to look away and other dictation for her grandmother's will by testifying for example that she recognized the grandmother signature or she knew that the grandmother made a will and it was the only way that the will was going to get in was by somebody who couldn't get it in because no foundation right yes your honor and the defendant chose not to testify and chose not to bring in any of this evidence that she could have brought it there was a serious question though about whether all of the money in the account had come from social security in fact there had been about one hundred twenty five thousand deposited in the account why wasn't the defendant entitle to was subpoenaed directed to  see what in the account came from cal stores as distinguished from social security because there might be a question of whether the money that was retrieved withdrawn was  well have enough evidence but to misstate the evidence doesn't help there was no evidence that she withdrew the money there was evidence that she was there and her mother i mean you have nobody saying she was she the mother that may be evidence that she had something to do with this but there was no evidence that she withdrew the money you know the facts are that this case even testified on pages one forty eight and forty nine if that's a record that the defendant stated her and her mother the defendant's mother and she closed the grandmother's account they withdrew the monies from the account they opened a separate joint account the defendant and her mother into which they transferred their grandmother's money to her new account from the next day is evidence of her intent and her active participation in the crime that occurred on november not not though because at some point you seem to be saying that that itself could have been a crime you know i believe that that could be a continuation of the crime in that she is again taking the money from the account however if she had not been actually present at the bank on the twenty seventh if she had not participated in the opening of the joint account if she did not tell the case agent that she and her mother will draw the money then the conduct on the twenty eighth alone would not have been sufficient it is evidence of her intent and her active participation in the or not because of some point you seem to be saying that because of the hour on or about instruction it doesn't matter whether the crime occurred in the twenty seven they could have occurred in the twenty years but you know saying no your honor the crime that was charged and the way that the government presented or argued the crime to the jury was that the crime occurred on the twenty seventh when the defendant went to the bank with her mother and they both withdrew all of the money from the grandmother's account called the twenty activity on the twenty eighth even if she knew the source of this money have been a crime or there is some suggestion that that the the and i think the government agreed with this that the crime the theft itself had zero and when they took the money out of the grandmother account is that right i don't believe the th ended at that point in that the following day she withdrew the money to use it for her own benefit so she made use of the money she stole would would not be evidence that she knew she could withdraw other the mother was the one that signed the withdrawal slip all of that was presented to the jury so the jury could look at all of the evidence and decide which a version of the facts and delete and it concluded that it did believe that defendant was at the bank with her mother actively withdrawing the money from the account she was not a mere bystander does the poor have any other questions you know that's fine thank you thank you thank you and just briefly i want to address the issue of what the judge actually ruled on when he prohibited the defense from eliciting evidence that can have actually know the facts of security there was an objection to one particular testimony it's the government that extended that objection to an overwhelming objection to whether the question of whether miscanthus notify the shots or good administration how one notify social security administration and how notifications are recorded so it's that was the government that made that the issue which the court was asked to rule on but it put if that's the case and then the government stood up when kim was on the stand and asked the question were two told to notify the social security administration wouldn't can't trial counsel for testimony that citibank told him and mary to notify the social security and we are going to object on relevance grounds to whether kim actually did notify such a cyclical a trial lawyer have a job and all this and say the logical consequence of your honor's ruling is that either both statements come in on kim's testimony or the government can ask him about that he did that he objected to the first really and explained to the court this is the a is no longer relevant and defense counsel says but they said in opening statement that came to notify i got to be able to respond and the court says an eight ninety five the objection on relevance grounds as a stand then on a ninety five defense counsel says the reason i need this evidence is that if kim reported that death it would make it more likely that she believed she was entitled to the money because the money wasn't social security there's a chain of inferences that come from that evidence and then points to the fact that the government has already told the jury this is a citibank employee told her to notified social security about mary's death now whether or not she did in fact cause you curity is not relevant and the court rules the objection is sustained so that's the two times he didn't agree that it defense and when you've been entitled to a limiting instruction that that evidence is only relevant on the question of whether she knew there was social security money in the account not that she had any obligation to report did anybody