sentence the entire counts involved the question of things that were on a computer his speed it was well it was not it was computer the one question raised here was the conduct of the government in the closing argument and was it sufficient to thwart the a fair trial it was such an unusual transcript read there were eight sustained objections in the course of the closing argument i think that's probably more than i've seen in my entire career in trying cases the question the the  to leak case in terms of what we have to prove to get a reversal that breaks down into two matters one is the improper and activities and whether there was substantial prejudice when bullets put that aside on the vouching the most egregious examples of vouching would be if the prosecutor he's implying that he or she has evidence that the jury doesn't know it like the st statement was we brought we i brought you the right to defend in a case that involved on his computer or not right so the prosecutor was implying he event the committee wanted to all the proof of why it was the right defendant so that wasn't in terms of vouching it wasn't suggesting he knew something the jury didn't know that they should rely on bad person and unworthy person and he did this let me just point out that the i've never seen the record before where somebody did a stare and the court reporter said indicating eternity look the defendant and talking to the jury he said bringing this could be your children it basically he was saying that he will admit the implication is there i mean why would he raised the question that the code isn't in the brief but and he looked at  it the stared and basically said you know i'm talking about this man could go by and it could be your ten year old out in the yard that he's staring at and look at it was it was something the trial that dealt with your client drop as he was driving past a yard with a red haired boy in it making reference to the red here what's it wasn't completely out of the blue it was a reference to something that was in the case which was the proclivity of your client with respect to read here boys if you talked about what had happened and if it was relevant that would be different but he didn't i don't remember that i read the whole  overwhelming well i mean the question was whether the laptop belonged to him right i think that the way i respond to that rather is i read the closing of this matter and i may be easy but i would not have convicted on it that's might might my basic were three witnesses who said it was his the registered owner was chris he he had logged in six hundred and eight times there was a fragment of data on it saying my name is chris of a heart wasn't the evidence that he it overwhelming i don't think so your honor there was ample evidence that was not his computer what was not the meet the test that i would put to it is it this was and i think it was the three major things the the  would not have used that this is improper conduct if they didn't need it or a better judge than the prosecutor to say i need this material and that's why i'm using improper material i mean i presentation and i know how difficult it is for the senate but at some point some point improper conduct by the prosecution must bear some sort of sanction now we're not talking about links i mean go free we're talking about the fact of giving his upon what we see in the record that's a different situation but it seems to me that we should give the jury the chance to make that determination free of this type of prejudicial situation and if the seems to me  to allow the taint of this type of activity to go forward and say but it's ok because he probably would be convicted and i'm not sure that that probability is anywhere near as i think i said mike i don't consider it a slam dunk your honour's monica richardson behalf the united states of america i could refer the court to the government and acts at age five hundred and ninety nine with regard to that exchange with regard to the drive by and driving somebody driving by and being in the yard was it's five transcript was also page fifty nine united government appendix but in the same moment the prosecutor also said it's the same guy that when you're driving down the road and he sees so he uses that word to your and it's not a good way to do it i grant that but he uses your whether your in the car uses your whether you're on the lawn he should have you know i could tell the court perhaps the use one imagine one is driving down the road imagine one is playing baseball instead of making it the direct it was the director position your bottom line is there was no need to phrase it that way he could simply just refer to the evidence with regard to the car right rather than putting it in the sea right i see that point your honor absolutely and like i suggested it would have been a better use to say the word imagine one is driving down the road imagine one is on the front yard but that is what happened here is your honor pointed out that this was a case where we did have the defendant driving down the road and was struck by the vision of a red haired child and that was something that went to the mens rea and what was involved in this case was denial of ownership a denial of response taking responsibility for the deeds and one of the things that was relevant to that determination was the repeated interest in red headed children so this isn't so out of the is relevant information was relevant in terms of the closing argument it was a piece of evidence that was relevant to the court to the jury's decision to determination so in terms of this court's review being for real abuse of discretion this court also has to be mindful of the fact that the district court had the particular advantage of observing the conduct and effect on the jury and here the court had that opportunity the court made its ruling sustained objections there were vigorous advocate for the government that's not something that's that's that's improper in closing summations or not a detached exposition as would be appropriate say in a lecture but this was a quick intense trial this was a five day trial that involved heinous activity heinous videos and pictures that were produced and what the jury saw frankly was worse than what the prosecutor said what the jury saw in this case was an accumulation of child pornography that was something unlike what has been seen in other cases that this was and tremendous amount of child pornography and the denial of ownership the denial of responsibility for it was directly what the prosecutor job was in terms of closing argument was to address that point he knew that when the when the defendant's attorney stood up he was going to say you got the wrong guy so he said you know what we've got the right guy he then backed  he outlined the evidence that supported that so whether or not this is something in the comments whether or not there are objections whether or not there are comments made that somebody else might have handled differently we can't say in the end that this is something that's so in fact at the trial with  quote imagine what that was like in that front yard you're playing baseball with your ten year old and some guy long blond hair and a must and does this i mean that's what happened back when you're fifteen and nine which indicates he was something wrong with him playing little boys this is all geared and definitely set up you can't be just unintentional there's a times he didn't even when he got one by the judge he came is not an atmosphere that we as it court system should encourage i thank you thank you we will reserve decision