theory asking that this court determine their ordinary abuses of discretion regarding evidentiary matters that would warrant a retrial in this matter i want to touch just a little bit on some background because that  that was owned by a good mom and dad found all honesty it was just a small three bedroom house that had two bedrooms on one a house and one on the other in between living room and kitchen now in the small ho there was told the tall people there was jeremy and his two kids who shared a room jeremy's mom and dad grandma or grandpa who had one of the rooms journeys adult sister who had a room journeys of all brother who live in the living room area understand it's a high burden no i don't think it's enough in this particular case i mean i don't appen it but in this particular case what i'll call the tail that comes from or what should come from a thirteen year old girl or years we have a lot of sexual conduct cases and what you're saying it's not unusual sometimes there is especially when you're dealing with kids sometimes it's physical evidence sometimes they're usually there is not and usually you have a single very difficult to see entered to overcome understand that the st one i want to talk about is the other acts and it testimony that was brought up in motions in limine brought up the fact that we don't want to talk about my responded yes that's one issue that i think should have been good in that initial group that's salt regarding other acts evidence i believe that it is prejudicial and should messages when you argue the rule of completeness do you have any foundation or offer of proof to show your proposed us just related to the ones that came in  the evidence in this case was sufficient the jury found that in the jury's verdict should be supported one of the judges i'm not sure which one raises the issue that you know it's longstanding law in this court and the others that the testimony of one witness if believed by a jury is sufficient to support a verdict and in fact this court recently held that october earlier this month in the case of united states of america versus cyrus three that's exactly what we have here  course the basis for the court making that ruling is because the jury is the one that's they are being able to observe the judge the credibility of the witness and what this court doesn't get to see of course is the testimony of the witness who was a fourteen year old girl on a witness stand who was very visibly upset that crying during a lot of her testimony and of course that's not hard to believe considering what happened to her what the defendant did to her and then facing the defendant who was her own father right in the courtroom and then having to testify against him in front of a roomful of strangers are despite the criticism of her testimony being vegan generic and lacking specificity there are plenty of examples where she did not give just one word answers and she adequately described the sexual acts that this defendant perpetrated on her including when she was eighty nine penis and then she also described were count two when she was thirteen years old a few different times the defendant sexually abusing her it's not unrealistic for a jury a reasonable jury to believe the testimony that she provided under the circumstances that she provided in this cour affirm the jury's verdict in this case by the way all the arguments that counsel or mr aunty has made to the court today were the very same arguments that were made in closing argument to the jury the jury chose to disregard them they had the consideration of all of those arguments and sat through the entire trial and observed all the evidence and testimony and i court has a particular evidence issues i'd be glad to discuss those i was there raised otherwise i can just go through them in the order addressed by counsel basis that the district court ruled they would not be permitted when offered by the defense which is the longstanding rule you can try to get in your own client's testimony  the stance and so the court made a proper ruling and didn't abuse its discretion as it related to texas and asked to the text messages trying to get a present sense impression i think this court ferreted out exactly what was going off auction acted to use text messages the government offered they were other t it didn't apply to any present sense impression about some other act that they were trying to offer proof of the other eviden matters that the defense argues were improperly excluded such as school behavior and the mother seek an additional visitation if the court looks at the record closely you'll see a lot of that kind of evidence did come on the core the district court properly exercised its discretion on marshalling which of that testimony was permitted and which was not but defense was permitted to get a lot of that evidence in and it made those arguments in the closing argument to the jury in this story as well as getting information about her getting in trouble in school that came in through the victim on cross examination but also the victim's grandm of the think you often use when looking at evidentiary issues is the evidence over otherwise overwhelming well i can't exactly say that the evidence here is overwhelming without physical evidence and otherwise as i understand that some of the sat is harmless for another reason because other evidence came back but how would you respond to that because we do have a lot of evidentiary errors last year that your honor and i would probably refer to my own closing argument but you know a lot of the evidence the defense wanted to get in about her bad behavior some of the other physical findings of her during the physical caused this child to go from a getting good grades in school to flunking many of her classes to participating in a lot of activities at school to dropping out of those activities and from being a fairly healthy child to one that was cutting and self harming herself are those directly attributed to this actual abuse that the jury had of evidence of you know no one made that determination but it's not hard to make that connection and so in a way her testimony about the sexual abuse of her it was actually corroborated by other all right do you want to address any other the issues are have you covered much wanted to cover you have time left i'm not trying to cut you off here  create that your honor i think the only thing left would be the experts i think the on back issue the court made a proper ruling it doesn't have to have a hearing or every expert that's proposed these particular experts proposed by the government or of the kind are commonly appear before the court district court these types of cases the notice is provided by the government put the defense on notice to all of the topics the court didn't abuse its discretion in  i'm sorry that is what i was that what i was asking about i would refer earth to the johnson case i believe and it had to do with some a method a model that they used to question witnesses and there's this court pointed out the substance of the objection had nothing to do with the substance or validity of what the expert was talking about and the same is true here amanda leibel the forensic interviewer all she said in her direct testimony was there were studie there's research that supports that disclosure of childhood maltreatment doesn't happen immediately and may not happen at all while that's the exact notice that i put in our notice regarding her she wasn't citing a particular study a year dad or anything like that and in fact defense counsel raised more of those issues on his cross examination so it was certainly prepared for that  ask for dr jones earth testimony was that there was there has been some research that she has seen that most of the time there aren't any injuries to the genital areas  of victims childhood becomes that she sees that was based in part on her own experience as well as research that she's had again that was noticed or provided in the notice by the government inside to a particular study but it was not that defense can claim they were caught by surprise when they were notified with no more questions i thank you for your time