documents that had been prepared by kelly unionise if and if the issue came down to in the closing argument if she did not read the documents which she testified to because she came in and she admitted shown the documents by the prosecutor are there misrepresentations in these documents and she said yes she admitted that the rest representations were in the documents but her defense or entire there is no evidence that she deliberately took some act to avoid having knowledge that objection was overruled the instruction was given we have not raised on appeal the issue of the giving or not giving of the instruction they cannot also come along and say but we're not going to let the jury hear anything with regard to either mental or physical abuse i'm a little confused by the government's argument in their brief that somehow the jury was permitted to consider mental abuse when that is precisely what they argue to the court should not be considered by the jury the quote that i have in my reply from the prosecute is abuse is abuse it's come in and say i knew she would have had to come in and testify i knew there were misrepresentations but the reason i signed the documents was because he forced me to do it that was not the defense in this case she said i didn't know i didn't read the documents but the jury did not get to hear that there was a there was a violent history between these two the judge told the trial the trial counsel well you can you can argue that he was controlling we can because of instruction number twenty i suspect the jury probably thought that that way or was was disregarding the judge's instruction when he argued controlling it and because of the nature of that telling the jury you can't consider any testimony of alleged abuse and in this case we know it's of any kind because the are trying to limit it to physical abuse even though i think that still would have been an error and so what the jury didn't hear was the precisely what the protections in this whole confusing area of  said well we're not going to require motive that you that you didn't look at it because you wanted to give yourself a defense so they cleared that confusion up in the case law and and told the stand and to concur a concurring judge's that but we don't need to worry about this being used in an improper fashion because of course you can come in and talk about deliberateness by talking about a environment very different kind of defense and that's why i got raised so many times by the traveler please judge let me put this in let the jury understand what was going on when she was when the papers were stuck in front of her and she signed them please let me let the jury know this because that will give context to the term deliberate the issue of deliberate a deliberate deliber counsel made some remarks about her is not someone qualified to work at nasa not a very smart girl those kind of things what the jury did not know was that  do you separate from this intellectual limitations that when combined with the jury not knowing about the abuse which was rendered on her by killing union hearing with regard to this is that her limitations were not so severe and heidi took somebody with her almost everywhere she went she had come up with with with what a lot of people who do have an election limitation to some coping mechanisms one of them was that for instance there's a deposition it was that was introduced into evidence with regard to and in a message to try to impeach or but she had keling unions sitting next to or in the deposition deposition her trial her lawyer in the civil case that the deposition was drawn from seven unions have threatened her throughout that process  was that there was some limitations here and so that's why the testing occurred by the and i guess my own what i'm saying is that it's the combination of those two circumstances which must be to turn if the term deliberate in and of itself is a psychological term so the evidence of the abuse and whether or not she had the real options at that point  in that context it was important for the jury to hear that and when the it when instruction number when instruction number twenty was given to the jury the jury for some reason at this very volatile time of mortgages do you think was unable to come up with any document which and yet all they could come up with was an affidavit that said based upon my review of the documents and based upon our general business practices at the time i'm telling you that we own this no this this mortgage and this this restitution will follow if the conviction stan will follow heidi probably for the for the rest of her life i think that in light of joyce banks history in light of the evidence at least with regard to their withstanding the courts rule so i think the jury would have understood that instruction to be referring to the physical abuse evidence because certainly defense counsel goes on to argue during the closing of the court tells him as she overrules the objection the district judge told defense using the word accused is highly prejudicial and i think this that goes to to to the rule for three balancing as to the exclusion of the physical abuse evidence and why it was proper from the natural tendency of evidence concerning domestic violence twisted sympathy for the victim so admitting this evidence of physical abuse ran the risk that the jury might find that the station knew about the fraud but it might acquit her anyway just out of sympathy the front line on this and hearing the evidence come in and got it right in striking a balance in favor of exclusion in light of the highly prejudicial nature of the evidence from the evidence that she did allow in concerning the controlling nature of mr  rule forty three matters the evidence of the sisters testimony with regard to use and is screaming at her to sign the documents and so forth was that part of the evidence presented to the appeal hears there hasn't been at least in the salmon nation terms your deposition in terms of any testimony by trial counsel as to why judgments were made  from high school she had was gainfully employed her entire adult life and she to change the prior mortgage loan she made change good credit by paying her bills on time just ahead of financial incentives here she profit from the closing social work school so there is a reason why i saw something there and why she got tested after the trial the i think that the instead let me read you the instructions to the to the jury  instruction amber twenty i instruct you to disregard any testimony of allegedly abuse of the defendant by kelly noone is the trial lawyer asked if the court limit that to physical abuse the court said no i'm not going to limit that to physical abuse so we can't look into the jury's mind in terms of what they considered and what they didn't consider the fact that th argued something in closing argument should not be a consideration because the jury was directly told to disregard any testimony of alleged abuse in making their determination  it also means that the defendant knew what she was doing but she was forced to do it and hiding high sugar testified that she did not know and so the durans defense was not available to or as long as she insisted on saying that she did not know and the jury then was told to disregard any of this the things you think heard from these other witnesses you can't consider any of that in determining whether or not heidi was was guilty you can't isolate a broken leg you can't isolate one incidence of a broken leg it's a wall that's the only regard to the course of that relationship and i ask you just a clarification on the scope of the evidence because the brief focuses on basically the  up saying you can't look at evidence of abuse and supposedly the other evidence the other the denture instruction was related to physical abuse is that right jury instruction was like an evidentiary ruling but included in the in in the end in the jury instructions itself and it was challenged at trial we have not raised it is a separate issue but it certainly is part of this issue because because the because what it did was it scooped up all of the evidence you can't the jury was instructed to disregard any evidence of abuse but that's not what the district judge counsel and the door was left open for domination evidence much of that evidence was submitted it may be that the instructions overbroad but there's not a separate objection to the instruction as such so i'm not it but that's an objection to the objection or the instruction and and we don't have that before us and so many words we have an objection to the evidentiary ruling a constitutional objection to the inability to present that part of the defense i think we presented to the issue the way we did it because the instruction is so much a part of the evidence she will i think the instruction itself simply reflects the court