of the victim witnesses that were how was that not smack in the face of six or eight because what she's going the way this is going to testify about in this case is going to be so incredible to the average juror because is going to provide the elements of the offense they're also going to give the rest of the story about what was happening between their real it during their relationship as a victim of the trafficking in their traffickers and well ninety percent of it i would agree with the clue or the average juror may comprehend that last ten percent the jury is going to hear she's such a mistake is your point that you want to use this witness to support the credibility of a witness or to demonstrate plausibility of the theme of your case right because as i understood the tenor of what the experts testimony was going to be it was going to be to explain why this tam low if you will of evidence makes sense writes logical that the government's concern was to a juror it may not seem logical why add up it may not make sense and what your expert was proffered for wise not to demonstrate the truthfulness of one or more of the witnesses but to say that this theme is plausible it is not for the trial court had been open to your expert testified after the cross examination of your victims who were going to be part of your case in chief was it was the trial judge really just regulating people who were of the testimony within the government's case  district court decisions including king out of hawaii the williams case which was a middle district a's in pennsylvania and davis out of the district of connecticut were more now as to what we're arguing that it's relevant and permissible in the government or one of her colleagues stands up and says to the jury and you should believe these girls because of what you heard from the expert isn't that was it was it your mission in women a one or even t that the motion was on several grounds for one for two and four o three because in addition to the idea of bolstering credibility because i believe that every time the government says helping understand a subculture helping to understand the dynamic essentially what they're saying is this how do you understand why the witnesses we have may not be truthful and so in this sense it's another way of saying both ring credibility so to that extent yes but it also if you look at the notice that they gave to us usually it said the psychology of victimization and then immediately thereafter when we asked for what exactly is the opinion because it was a one sentence notice we were given this is what this witness is going to testify  that the it was the health care problems related to the actions of the traffickers as they caught the barriers to exit in the in some of their opinion information  was not the likelihood of deaths but had caused his death in people with these and how the that minors are more vulnerable to this type of activity all those things i would suggest to the court it makes  it as you as we pointed out or as you pointed out cross examination was that there was open however they then went through the two or three analysis and in their opinion they indicated that the claims of prejudice judge in our case didn't get to that point he said it wasn't relevant and no one in the first question you asked judge mckee was could exist within the discretion of the judge she could have permitted it he could have not permitted i think he would have a very difficult argument  just to argue that he permitted it i think it's within the judge's discretion it create we think it was clearly reasonable but in any event if it's just reasonable if it would it is not is clearly under reasonable and disagree with it i understand it has been committed but i think it went into sort of the the mechanics of how things worked as opposed to the psychology of victims victims who have not been examined by their was a  is holding against one's will it is easy to see that there's an enticement one of the many ways recruiting entice you know things like that and it to argue that in the beginning somehow to explain how the enticement took place i could well i agree if this were needed it at this point i don't see it as being relevant i think the judge made the correct decision whether or not hypothetically it becomes relevant in the future would have to be a decision made by the judge at the time that the testimony is offered but at the time that  argument under seven if the poster relevance your argument i mean you're really making more of an expert should should the testimony be committed in the form of an opinion at all because it doesn't fit cases opposed to whether or not it's relevant to help jurors understand and enterprise that they may not encounter in their everyday living i would agree and i would want to see this expert actually examine the witness to determine whether or not she's suffering from the condition that so generally g expert conducted one hour telephone interview with some of the witnesses so they become says they've turned them and we'll and that was none of that was permitted that did not  money to the camps in order in exchange for them holding their hand or that after he was arrested they were putting money on continue to put money on their books and that these things are just going to be incredible to the jury to believe you know what else are going to