testimony he lied about his criminal involvement he lied that he was with the full time from ninety six to two thousand and he lied about the fact of his criminal government in terms of what he did he said he still ten cards he did that actually reluctantly and finally he said well it's the government didn't impeach him on any point it says far as i know except one point and that is he denied it whether he was getting as part of his deal the fact that they wouldn't charge him with other crimes that indeed and the government actually didn't impeach big guy trying to save his skin his minimizing his conduct resulted in the fact that he was getting a cooperation deal didn't mean that much if he's a big guy and squawking against everybody of course it means a great deal if he's just a small fry he's not saving himself much time anyway but here he was saving himself an enormous time he also lied about his involvement with his girlfriend he acted in a way that he didn't do anything with this girl when he was in a separate conspiracy with her stealing again credit card and selling them prancing around recruiting people and so forth that lie is particularly important because with that like show it was two things again it minimized his own involvement that he recruited people that he did other things that he did this to his own girlfriend is this honestly his disservice and instead what made him sound was dismissed and in closing argument in the sort of second segment of the closed after the fence counsel try to beat up on kogan what the prosecutor did say was these are witnesses this is what kogan says this is what the other person says this is what the other thousand dollars that he knew the government didn't say that the government knew it right then at the moment but that will say for cogen now to you again the government signed to push it over to the side when it was that much of a liar we corrected a few things it's not that bad the cunning upon the eyes well you may not or minimize himself a little bit about his girlfriend's involvement otherwise there were no lies and that's just not true for the record i have cited the record and i actually have it in the excerpts of record for you but you know it goes on beyond that when i'm talking about here is government to see through the case some scouts defense counsel tried mightily to in cross examination but all goldman would say well maybe a little more ten or a little bit more that's it the government has all this information ogun nothing to do with them and i brought to the court's attention for documents for documents which are important documents there are others as well as i quoted in my opening break one of them shows that cohen wanted to deal with a guy named both of right about the follow this would have been pointed out but this wasn't provided to the lipans and more than that what he said further and perhaps more importantly is a year after this case partly after he was arrested but before the trial he  phone call apartment he called again in a prone call to go stale he's still doing credit cards that's what he says i'm still doing credit cards you think that might have been important for the jury to know this guy is still at these minimizing his activity he's saying he's not doing anything else and that two people tried to set me up on a credit card you know and i refused to do it subsequent kind of going to my intent i didn't do it judge says no the subsequent won't come in not because the focus of the jury will be somewhere else no that's not the reason that's not anything the judge talked about not because it's not a similar judge and talk about that are not because there's not enough evidence just never mentions that judge mentions one thing it's subsequent to the event it won't come in so it comes in when the defense when it helps the reluctantly cogan admitted that his girlfriend the one that he lied about was my client's wife's sister and that he and his girlfriend visited my client's home often right during that period of time and again this is very reluctant information from call all she said was there was a russian and russians call me from the san francisco bay area my point is that wouldn't be enough you're focusing on that but there are lots of other evidence and most of the evidence was poking that was most of the evidence and also on your point that table reluctantly admitting that but then said i lied when i told her at the door so that's how that testimony came out the main evidence against him clearly is this evidence based on i believe perjured testimony and deception throughout the trial court my name is elise bakker i'm the sister united states attorney here in the northern district of california here on behalf of the united states good afternoon your honour's i'll start with mr warner's last argument first addressing the sentencing issues with respect to the loss on the second credit card because the government recovered the stolen property since they were caught in the act literally at the san fran shopping center with the stolen merchandise but again he didn't dispute what the actual announce were in the court cannot make any independent all this breaking information the government made available to defense counsel everything except for what's in it ex parte and in lemonade to the trial court there were boxes of discovery in this case all the defendants were in process of discovery i was referring to previously  actually that would be that the court's order the excerpts in the various reports that were referred to our record sixty two through eighty five well actually through eighty five or sixty two to credit card information or solicitors security information while working at the car dealerships one again what did the government specifically do to tell a jury that this guy is probably a liar the government first entered into stipulations with the defense as to what the announce that the last in mr cogan scase exceeded the amount of restitution  and was ordered to pay which clearly exceeded the amount of loss that we were addressing at the trial with mr moore and as well mr hogan had emitted that he played guilty to the charges in his case which were conspiracy to use only credit cards with two other people after stealing mail and the on off unlawful use of a number of credit cards in addition to those stipulations the government also before the trial but again all of that turned over to whom to the defense there were four defendants in all these cases and everybody received documents relating to all the uses of credit cards the government judge had these various pieces of paper in chambers that little what was the judge asked to do the judge was asked to review the what i want to have the defense lawyers do is give me a list they knew the case tell me what you would like me to look for i'll look at everything tell me what you'd like me to another reason why she recognized mr moore steve going back to her first interactions with him when he paid by an american express card and it is thanks stipulated that that american express card had belonged to mr mois the defendant also stipulated i my recollection is correct that the american express card had never been stolen or used fraudulent lee and i don't believe there's anything in the record to support this theory that somebody else had taken  significant than the these two limited credit cards in this particular case there was a much greater scope of his involvement with respect to ms goldman steen she was in a pretrial diversion program which was there for slightly different from mr cogan five from april twenty ninth two thousand and three now the punishment provided by law for this crime is for the court to decide you may not consider punishment in deciding whether the united states has proved its case against the defendant beyond a that's what the self was always talking about right simply ruled that in fact the penalties would not come in and in light of the standard jury instruction which we've already decided was going to be given that the jury was not to consider what the sentence was the government  fully with this agreement that legally meant it will file with the court a motion under section five one point one and or eighteen united states code section thirty five fifty three that explains the nature and extent of the defense cooperation and recommend need to have an attorney present while she testified at trial but in fact mr roberts on cross examination his golden praying pretty much went through every requirement that she coke and there i believe that the record was that more of that there was little credibility left to him at the conclusion of his cross examination and shopping with them that's literally stealing and that was about two months prior to when he is when he supposedly has my client has his partner and their trial he testified  thank you for pointing it out because now that you have a certification of them that you have complied i have signed my certification and understand that i was in compliance because it's for time