the case involving whether or not there is prejudiced from prosecutorial vouching is improper the weaker the evidence that is independent of the not tainted by the vouching the stronger showing of prejudice fingerprints there is no d n a there no photographs there no eye witnesses nothing to show he was involved in this crime except for the testimony  two people both of whom are extremely tainted by the prosecutorial valvetrain one of them admittedly involved in the felony murder and the robbery and another with a motive to be prejudiced and who is the best test mode and it would be we all counsel wasn't that an issue that was highlighted by the defense in this and you've got the instruction that says you know you need to be suspect of this testimony that who is a jury going to being hurt more have a tendency to rely on and fully defense counsel who is representing somebody put on trial accused of a crime very serious crime somebody who represents the state of california and that's the problem with outing is no matter what the defense counsel may say you still have that improvement tour of the government saying we know things that you don't know and you should trust guys p s a that the duty well not quite in those words but there were several instances that i submit to you she's telling the truth well that there were other instances where added upon to that he's saying we know she's telling the truth first of all if you say that here we know she's very well what he said was that her testimony had the ring of truth there wasn't  it wasn't in baelish and he said the plea agreement calls for her to tell the truth but he wanted more than that there was discussion by him of the fact that if she doesn't tell the truth we're going to know  and where did he say that he's saying well first of all he said it in his opening up argument basically he infers her compliance well he says what he says in the opening statement is that we're going to introduce a plea agreement the plea really calls for her to tell the truth that's not improper that and so she's got to be consistent with that and if she's not consistent with that then she loses her plea agreements so this person's got everything to lose by not staying consistent but that that's still presupposes what she wanted in the first place you know so what you're dealing with and you're not dealing with a good samaritan you're not dealing with a person that doesn't have you know a horse in the race you're dealing with someone that you know wants her deal and i think that repeated references to the plea agreement of not being truthful once close once we're into the argument stage of the trial prosecutor now has heard her testimony so now by by a valid thing for her in the closing arguments and he's saying i know her to be truthful because if that were not the case we would then be withdrawing her play and saying please no good you have not tell us like drew do you agree with me that there's a difference between the rather bland statement made in opening and the argument is made in closing but at that point defense counsel has opened that issue and is openly accusing the witness  and i think the case law center is that you have a right then to to comment on your why this person has an incentive to tell the truth well the district court found that in fact defense counsel did not  first refer to that but it was in response to the defenses or excuse me the prosecution's continuing references to her being truthful about the  bargain and again once the close of the evidence comes in he's still saying we know her to be telling the truth because here we are we're arguing she this case well the standard is whether the trials fundamentally unfair are and i believe it was because there were numerous numerous instances of  prosecutor and about what it was said and then the prosecutor send the law enforcement officer back to do another interview the first wasn't tape the second was there was a big difference in the two interviews because in the on tape interview supposedly the witness said well mr curtis said he drove to the to the scene of the crime and yet in the recorded statement that didn't come so now we have the prosecution resting itself into the investigative process and why are the facts so we know that you don't that we're going to tell you we know we're not going to tell you what they are and then other instances of saying well we know other cases we have personal knowledge of other cases and this is a strong case relative to these other cases that we're not going to tell you about we're not going to tell you what the evidence is but just trust us we know this is a strong case also we only file when we have all the evidence and circumstances  put a case before you the jury and again that's saying there's things here we know that you don't so it's i'm going i'm going valjean assertions of knowledge comments involved there were not vouching comments i think in darden there were statements that the department of corrections in that case was at fault for the murders committed by the defendant that case because he committed the murders went on for a low and it d manichean came in and she told you the truth isn't that just absolute i respectfully disagree and that the reason is because those comments have to be considered in context and in discussing both the credibility  manukau the prosecutor did state that each of them told the truth but consider in context those statements are based on the evidence and were basically reasonable inferences and conclusions based on the evidence for example  if he did the same thing he argued that based based on the provisions of the plea agreement should be truthful and also more importantly he argued that look she didn't give us everything that we wanted for example he specifically pointed out that she didn't place position at the crime scene so i think the prosecutor's comments are more partly proper and in any event the key issue here isn't necessarily whether the prosecutor's comments constituted vouching but whether the prosecutor trying to make is that here petitioner to the extent it's a credibility contest petitioner's credibility was was clearly suspect in addition to crop ratings testimony for dia he also admitted on the stand several times that he lied i think  addition to meaning that he lied to the police he also one of one of his alibis was used with someone named quote unquote lisa but he couldn't remember a last name and he didn't present her trial so i think there's a lot of that he testified that he was with is to the extent that he's raising any uncertified issues here the specific issue granted to search of get a feel guilty is vouching and he's trying to bring in other saying that the prosecutor brought in extraneous basically bro sister said on important matters in this video the light at the drop of a hat are you saying that the prosecution cannot argue the credibility of the witness but in terms of the strength and the weakness of the