next we'll hear garcia versus frankie context of how i believe we think it can resolve itself the defense lawyer asked the child the d on cross examination and now was there a rd incident that you told your mom about he's referring had spoke about two incidents concerning the kissing and touching but now he's going to this rd incident with respect to v b telling her mother whether she told the mother about another incident of rape in the presence of mr garcia's daughter to which the child says no those are the only two that i told my mom about the only two which is the kissing and the kiss and touch especially my position is justice in justice versus hoke the excluded evidence was the only source of facts essential to proving the theory of defense essentially in this case this was a one witness identification case zero forensics inquiry into that now did i under i saw where it would not allow it with respect to tack testifying about what the mother told him but did you attempt to question the mother about what the daughter told her i didn't see that and that's why i'm asking well i don't believe that was specifically asked of the mother i do know that and why i ask that is because it seems to me that in terms of what the daughter told the mother only the mother could testified that the mother could have told the detective any number of things or not it doesn't say anything about what the daughter told her mother you've got you've got a double hearsay problem here you may be able to clear one hurdle but i don't see how you clear the other well the st part of it is judge one this is not being offered for the truth this  if that is where my problem comes in on whether or not the state court ruling was on reasonable in not letting the mother tell it like that detective testified about what the mother how well the state court ruling and let me let me ask a question and i respectfully it's and a hypothetical so what if d d had told the mother of a wall incident but then later admitting that was a lie i'm giving you two scenarios  here how this could have happened and what could have how it could impact in this case is critically important witness with the fat a would that have been relevant to the mother in other words if the child if the child was initially tell him of the that this happened and then says she lives this happens right after this a meeting with the with the c p s worker it's the child's state of mind at the time if the child is lying how would that affect a jury's there's no doubt about that and there's no doubt that there was some plenty of evidence that the person was not all that credible and i think one can even if one can look behind the fact the notion that this your client was not tried for rape but was tried for much less and got only one year so the question of credibility and how credible and how much fear was is all over this case you can't you can't believe that the state if they were fairly comfortable with him as early would gets to be a year in a situation like this if there weren't problems but the question for us is not of  say that this was basically ok and our position has to be is vet so one reasonable that we can overthrow in the whole context of this and credibility here is essential when you have a case as causes this blogger is in and other cases by this court have indicated that when the evidence is very close even small amounts of additional evidence even impeaching evidence essentially they didn't understand the difference between hearsay and admissions and an offer for a non truthfulness purpose but this would go directly to the bias of the mother motive of the mother and clear the c p s worker would know if the mother in fact told her that this is all contemporaneous right at the time that when the report is st the child's report is st given to the authorities  child's state of mind at the time no false a single false and i'll notice the the law is on such a critical thing as rape the child not telling friends counsel i never told my mother about anything else well i could i i suspect the quote with take the position of how the prosecution is not raising this for any purpose at all it's not the truth if you don't bring it out at all it's hard to imagine so when you when you put the whole case together in light of this case has precedence this respectfully submitted there was six to seventy briefings with this young girl not once has any of this stuff come out so i respectfully urge the court that that it w to to the trial court's decision here and most important reason why this decision was found was because in reviewing the trial record the defense did not have sufficient evidence to prove a pattern of false allegations  appellant of her for correct reason so that some people didn't offer propensity evidence against the fact the prosecution instead offered evidence directly related to the crime at hand the crime that was on trial now as the judge properly ruled out the probative value of this information was substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury or confusing issues of hands the blue green jersey would have been required to determine other evidence impeaching this not sixteen year old that went directly to her claiming that she had been raped another time involved in this now unfortunately but doesn't answer my question of yet because it is a very tough standard but this is just some more the instead the attempt was to ask the detective what the mother had told him right now is correct and i'm not sure i see how that impeaches the child except to draw an inference that well if the mother told had counsel instead tried to impeach the complainant in a different method perhaps where the complainant and only denied making the separate allegation you know something of more concrete  because of the men are in which the defense attempted to introduce this as evidence the trial judge provided lee the term it's a coon and because of how easily it could have prejudiced either side either side of the case here you know this is technically  whether this other subject incident actually took place or not and certainly that could cause a conglomeration of issues and confusion you know ultimately like i said this would have created a classic trial to the trial because the victim was so specifically witness to answer for that other allegation of sexual abuse it's not she ever denied making it there was never ever have any evidence to suggest that it happened or didn't happen so ultimately at the end of the day the defense prised of these very issues when they were deliberating that this victim was way from back and that she didn't seem so clear as to which instance she reported to who and why so as such ultimately this additional testimony would not have created a reasonable doubt  otherwise this when considering appellant claim in this context and in reviewing the specific record of you here it just simply cannot be said that the appellate terms were ruling was an unreasonable application really established federal law and the district court you have two minutes for a bottle thank you thank you i want to st of all defense counsel was trying to prove a pattern of the false allegations that was an in the in the rubbing incident the kissing incident where the trial lawyer would not with the trial judge would not allow defense counsel to bring out from the detectives that v b never told him about those incidents that did not come out the false rape incident the wall incident was another incident that would have established more of a pattern of false allegations of sexual misconduct against this defendant because the complain did deny making a further allegations i just went off richie was very specific too i told my mom about two was there any more no it was two so the and on top of that house together i point to this judges we don't have a false a record of really what the impeachment could have been because there was such severe limitations on the right to cross examination and the right to cross it's presented defense that had this evidence been presented it could have been further developed we never had an opportunity to do that and it could have the jury could have been in the spirit of false assume or forces on a bus so you know what this creates reasonable doubt this is too close this is too close to to base a conviction on so for all those reasons your honor i respectfully submit that the decision of the state the public what was in a reasonable interpretation of clearly established supreme court precedent