behalf of appellate them to shore up the lack of any system testimony in the case against mr song the government resorted to multiple forms of improper and unfairly prejudicial evidence which dominated the proof and deprived mr song of a fair trial i'd like to focus on two in particular st the testimony of three alleged victims workers and one of their wives who eight to nine years before the charge but no i did not you  improper admission of this evidence individually cumulatively wants reversal st with respect to the un charge crimes it's important to emphasize that this evidence was admitted on the false premise that these witnesses with testify mr songs personal involvement in their hearts lying events they described that occurred nearly ten years before the charge comes up in connection with the motion practice the government represented that these witnesses testify to the defendant efforts to force the victims to return to really custody the government told the district court that one victim kevin lou would testify that the defendant located him at a boarding house in queens and that the defendant persuaded him not to contact the police and warned him you would lose a security deposit and that religion would seize his mother's house in china defendant's objection specifically based on its representation the district court noted that defendant's actions including the alleged kidnapping abduction of the victim labors justified it the district court cited the government's intention of proving that the defendant's course of techniques and practices of the chinese china really were the same as those he used as president of us ruined during the charge prejudice and that's a appendix ninety nine to one hundred the evidence that these witnesses provided which really dominated the trial was of a completely different order from highlight a couple of points and in this matter that doesn't matter that sean was taking over the seam business that committed the other act since two thousand and one to two thousand and two i mean isn't it part of the story of his conduct to say that the company had done this before and so those practices informed the expectations of its employees and so on why isn't that wasn't that relevant well here are the reason it's not relevant in this particular case is that we're talking about evidence from eight years earlier we're talking about of evidence acts of just a completely different order of magnitude you know the jury is being told about events that involved you know scooping people up off the streets of washing into a van threatening people to break their leg slashing them with a tool and introducing pictures of scar a worker experience and all of that i mean i understand that you would dispute will dispute that there was such evidence but i suppose you might acknowledge that if it could be sure that even eight years after the fact critical that the evidence was eight years earlier there's no evidence in the record whatsoever as to what if any role mr young played in the company in the early two thousand other than that people had a  sense that he was a manager and so and then that i would also point out that in you know other cases such as the curly cane the court has excluded some evidence  similar to this type of thing but it's if the problem here is not only that the evidence there wasn't a sufficient link to admit the evidence but also and perhaps most importantly the unfair prejudice that this was on suffered by the fact that this evidence dominated the trial and the government highlighted it from the very st words of the opening all throughout the trial and role in the district court case keeping function when it comes to expert testimony and here we had the government repeatedly listening with experts use our so called typical features of forced labor affective features  are focused on the record in this case the particular testimony given by this expert with respect to you know the organized crime example i think this is very different the type of testimony this court has  permitted in such cases are testimony about you know for things like the window that organized crime members use and the hierarchy and structure of an organized crime organization you know that wasn't the testimony here if this expert was not limited in fact he didn't actually have any expertise on trying them whatsoever to speak of and and he he wasn't thing about or anything along similar to what about the expert what about if we're just moving the contract is there to you in your view is there a categorical rule that he shouldn't be talking about specific items of evidence or that that testimony was a contract again just alone while your honor i think you think number one i think the point is that that testimony crossed the line we're not talking about testimony that simply tried to explain the terms of terms that that a lay but rather if the use of opinions in adjectives like you know calling things red flags saying they were troubling that sort of thing but i think the more important point is  that even if this court were to conclude that a couple of pieces of his testimony could have been admitted if the testimony had been limited to those pieces we're talking about the overall inflammatory highly prejudice or what you see is the government asking these open ended questions and the expert making long speeches where the ears as i said you know into these topics they're outrageously inflammatory  to another she didn't bring up just that like to get a brief comment on it so if you had been able to pursue the character testimony about two wings reputation for truthfulness what it how much would it have added to what you already were earlier that that he he was not a credible witness that really disappointed that he was a credible witness i mean as i read the transcript from that proceeding the judge just seems to be saying that you found his believed the other witness and indeed judge donnelly herself described the the opinion that way she said that the new jersey judge didn't believe  beginning back in two thousand through the indictment period as well as the threats of force and insemination to ensure that workers would continue to work against their will and at bottom a jury could reasonably conclude that the additional pre indictment evidence was part of a larger scheme that and the charging period and that all times both pre and thence and during the indictment period the defendant dan jiang was the leader of this conspiracy i think if we look at or two thousand and two further the renditions were coordinated and directed by people who recorded directly to dan john both when long gong and mob song shed for thousand and nine secondly i think the evidence we introduced showed that at the time he was in charge rylan u s operations even though he did not become formally in charge of rylan us around until two thousand and ten he was  additionally we introduced evidence showing that he had control of the rylan finances before the infected period and that if you look at the signature cards for and this is grand this is the government's exhibit five hundred and sixteen the signature cards for access to the bank accounts the corporate bank accounts some of these appeared to grant control over company counts as early as two thousand lastly i would point you promise this is less than you had promised the district judge when you were introducing this evidence right didn't you say that you were going to say that john was personally involved in a lot of showed during the indictment period which is really about employment contracts that are harsh and holding couples passports in crowded residence has and so on i mean it is a different in different falling down a flight of stairs from exhaustion and then you know i think the most incendiary piece of evidence in the entire trial was during the indictment period and that was the explosion a contract for thai kong that his wife explained how he ten and then you have the discovery of the documents tracking the various victims you understand this is all part of and continuous scheme so when you see dan jiang in two thousand and twelve receiving an e mail version of one of these contracts with extortionat the expert testimony as well so i mean there was testimony that was introduced to china scooping up mentally and physically challenged people taking it railway stations taking them to brick kills another three jobs and then particular type ology forced labor scheme worked in the context of a relationship between a large multinational company and the p r c government so when you're explaining to the jury submit that that was more of a street comment certainly if you look at the totality of the testimony the focus was really on the technologies of forced labor practices and specifically you know how do you know what the interplay would be to the penalty and that's why that's what you said sure among other reasons absolutely and what about commenting on the contract when the expert says it raises red flags for him is that not while you know on a superficial reading may not appear maybe may appear ultimately not to us upon a closer reading and the relationship between this company and appears to governments are actually more menacing in the various and and how the that is for sure that right yes i think it bottomed the testimony was was chemo or the testimony sought by the defense would have been cumulative what can one testified to during his direct examination was the fact that he was essentially working two jobs at once and this testimony was proper written by other witnesses including defense witnesses who worked under him u s rylan and you know he indicated that this was you know a fundamentally dishonest act that he did not telling rylan that he was working for another company at the same time you know to the extent that these other witnesses who testified that he was not present in the  witnesses who were these employees of us rylan we didn't see their boss there testifying that he has a reputation for dishonesty because he's not you know he says you can be one place  he claimed that mr jong had told this high level delegation that that there were these repercussions for its case workers now it was critical to be able to impeach him because with that other evidence and indeed this it and one thing well let me just say that he had never said that before  he was a in the f b i and persists years and prepare details reports for the f b i in multiple detailed reports and he had never included this alleged statement in his report and the government actually that one snippet of testimony is not as important as you're suggesting well let me say two things st of all i don't mean to suggest that i endorse the government's interpretation of the testimony because the bigger point to that is that if you read the testimony of just one paragraph on appendix we're thirty five there's no evidence of when this conversation occurred there's no evidence of what worker is related to none of that it's incredibly bay so it doesn't even on  generalized sense of what he did they they didn't say he was the ultimate boss or anything like that so i think the record doesn't bear it out and we're talking about about very old evidence that was just of  mentioned earlier the government three times and it's great told this court that the defendant was involved in efforts to quote abducted high con and they point to two pieces of testimony and one of them mr ray ten is asked can you tell me about your conversation with the defendant about high crimes escape this is on eight to fifteen and he says so it's roughly like that he asked me if i knew comic con had escaped that i know that he asked me whether is any likelihood i would know where he is i said i don't know that it and then there's one other eight to nineteen the same witness it to your knowledge was anyone in china really looking for comic con and he says the answer land on why how do you know that answer well if somebody were to look for him that would be something that when done when was responsible for because he was the project manager that's it so there's no connection to the defendant with respect to yours or even any evidence that anyone was actually trying to adjust the last thing s to the expert i just want to highlight without repeating what i said earlier but this these workers were not we gors they were not disabled people there was absolutely no reason to get into that and again if the court really lastly i did want to mention it to the experts that these experts even veers into subjects such as indicating that he believes that people who are engaged in forced labor seem to take a pleasure by having this kind of control over other people all of this is incredibly improper highly inflammatory and the government and its some nation went back time and again back to mr de baka the last thing i just want to say it is and i hope this is not the case for accusing your honour's are going to occur i do want to emphasize that we believe that the district court committed procedural error and i wanted to highlight in particular the error as to the vulnerable victim enhanced meant which is supposed to be about getting victims and the district court rely primarily on its finding that the conduct made them vulnerable and also failed to make individualized