why partly is because it carries weight we all know that the representative of the government has a lot carries with that a lot of prestigious and premature ability when they're talking to a jury and that is probably legitimately so he is there as representative as he of the united states of america and all the power that that he has what comes along with that responsibility though with the film comes along with that with all of that is this idea that what the government says during closing arguments is going to be subject to close scrutiny because their words do carry so much force throughout somewhat persuasive value with the jury and when the government gets up there  represent of the government and tells the jury that this police officer came up here and got on the stand and he told the truth that is considered improper let's get this considered over persuasive style missouri that look i'm here's representative government i know about this case and you'll see the examples there in the government's answer in brief that of these twenty two and twenty three the government list examples of the fence council's arguments and she says things such as example we need to listen to the officers testimony not c which you're not allowed to do is go to this level above the trial level testimony and make a personal ass of a chin of credibility and that's exactly what we have here is that of connecting testimony you know stand and he told the truth and he does this with it with the rhetorical flourish saying well he must have wives and he and everybody else you know the you know he's a liar he lied to everybody contradicted when he knows and we all know that there was a plethora of evidence tending to contradict the robbery occurred defense counsel couldn't bring that in because of the district court's motion in limine ruling and the processor took advantage of that by telling the jury this evidence but we were never able to find this individual this never an individual never testified because he's a liar we don't and we have and if you look at the supreme court case and j l which is about reasonable the supreme court holds there is an anonymous tip isn't enough for a reasonable suspicion finding because there's no way to verify that the person and we can't tell if he's a liar if yes and actually grind against this person if he's making false accusations because you can actually write we cannot investigate any of this in this case because we don't know who this person it it's very important as we're talking about a four level swing and i'm not and that one point i'd like to make is that the government is saying well this is a clearly erroneous standard review on the sensing issue because the court found that a robbery occurred  good morning may please the court i'm there and we heard with the united states attorney's office in las vegas in response to the defendant's argument here today your honor and in closing argument there were specific allegations made against officer russell he went through examination as rightly he should by the defendant but the statements that were made in closing argument by the defendant that specifically stated that talk about this officer planting a weapon on this particular individual i don't think you impugn someone's credibility more than talking about planting evidence on an individual over your honor the comment that was made was you know you know i don't know if this officer planted a weapon i'm not going to say that by not saying it you're saying it i don't i don't know how clear that can be your honor talking about planting a weapon in closing argument on the officer whose one person that's credibility is central to this case statement right there impugns that officer is credibility more than anything else beyond what you stated earlier talking about his testimony his testimony is garbage his testimony isn't truthful talking about what he stuff you didn't see what happened here he didn't yes what he says doesn't make sense talking about officer russell these are five or six or seven different things that are said about his testimony in this trial what he said didn't was that the defense counsel made it clear to the jury that they thought the officer's story was all false and made up it was a lie what is legitimate for the u s attorney to do in closing argument a by saying all governor witnesses that testified in this trial this officer and two other officers and all the other witnesses tell the truth are you are you taking the position that a defense counsel was obnoxious the government could be that we do well here i don't believe it rose to a level of telling him that this individual has a lot to lose by coming in here and not telling the truth and i think that's proper argument in response to what is alleged here and we have one officer who made this arrest here and that appropriate it did not cross that line talking about this office or him telling the truth to the members of the jury to the judge for myself i think is appropriate here essentially by saying this officer lied by everything he said in this trial much more you can say about an officer than she planted evidence on this defendant that is extraordinary damaging to my one officer who my credibility relies on and we have that responsibility to prove this case you could  said in her clothes jaeger argument is not accurate that is not accurate what she said about him pointing out that it's about him not being truthful by what he said all being garbage that's not truthful that's not what happened here and that was the appropriate response ron your honor moving to the second point that was mentioned about the government somehow taking advantage of the motion in limine if you look through this entire record there's not one instance where the government prosecutor in this case ever mentioned any of the details of this robbery got into exactly what happened with this robbery or mentioned anything to do with that and if you look at what the judge when the issue came up about how the officer responded in this case i followed the rules which were or stated that that a man approached him frantically yelled that person over there robbed me i never went outside of those lines anywhere in this record and that's clear in addition judge hunt went the extra effort and when i even brought this up it mohnish the members of the jury in the record and told them that he's not on trial for this you don't listen to this you don't you don't you don't take anything into account about anything do with this robbery that's what i abide by within those parameters and those abided by throughout the trial and there's not one instance when i went outside of those vans and talked about in the details the cell phone being found the fifty dollars being found or anything that the victim being brought to the scene later that was never mentioned anywhere in this record  and so i would say to this court that the government prosecutor in their argument never went outside of the motion in limine we did abide by what the judge did in this particular case and the last point that defense counsel made regarding four point hansen i believe the judge made the right decision here if you look at the particular facts here i believe the government would be on shaky ground your honesty if only thing we had was this victim said i was robbed by that man and that was it but we have this corroborated by the fact  from you on a deserted street at three in the morning and somebody you know this type frantically yells that person robbed me right there the defendant a five time convicted felon he's familiar with the criminal justice system you would think you would want to walk over and explain to examination our one witness went through and the closing argument when they allege what officer said isn't telling the truth and that somehow what this officer of deserve in him running or not running you know that's that's a credibility of the officer so answer said that he ran and he was cross examined that maybe it happened maybe it didn't happen but his credibility is put in question did the officer see him run or maybe didn't run i think that needs to be addressed and put forth to the jury  and as i make it the end of my argument the evidence that we believe was clear in this case and whatever points that you're making i believe are harmless in the way that i summarize my argument your honor with that thank you i have to inject a couple points of fact from the government our defense counsel many times during the motion in limine argument sensing said my client had more than fifty dollars on him not once did the government ever object to that characterization or we couldn't prove that then that they were saying that that wasn't true belonged to this anonymous wire person we'd have a much different case but we never they never did that they just handed it over and i was the end of it and we were never able to find this guy ever which ties into another point here is akin to what the court was concerned