of which is that no one can be punished twice for the same crime and what we say happened here was that one kidnapping occurred yet mr harrington has two sentences a ten year sentence and a five year sentence which are running well your honor i think it's more than just getting it wrong it's not addressing this is the issue i don't stand next i want to start they don't mention the statute itself they don't even mention the term you know the prosecution there's no one now it's just there at all they don't they don't can say i mean if you take staley for what is seen to be saying you get a kidnapping when he takes the person often injures a person and then they say well it's not a second kidnapping if you bring the person back to a place of safety that's ok but that certainly bears the implication if you then decide to take a person off to another dangerous place and hurt them that would be a second kidnapping so you may not like that but it strikes me that that's what you goes up there one way or another something happens very bad to her up there and then he comes back and he goes home and he goes and changes clothes and is going to take her and take her home then he's on his way or he's going to take you to another place or home and he's on his way in a police car comes along and you turn something like that and he turns off and that's when the second frolic takes place whatever that was that's going to take place again and do some order what's wrong with a couple things i just like respond to your and that's certainly an interpretation that that's certainly an interpretation that you would be more than entitled to make if you choose to do that a couple of things about it though and i think you're well aware of this  'm in the case i indicated that there was no stop at all and of course regrettably to my client the jury believe the victim obviously on everything just simply everything that gates and you don't have we don't know that doing well we he lost on everything in the  case we don't know what for sure but it sure looks that way also i think the general view of kidnapping found in the larsen case the specific view there and certainly the view of kidnapping generally common law and otherwise  was accurate the mere fact that there may have been some very short term stop at his house doesn't doesn't stop the kidnapping unless unless there's some evidence that this that the victim could was released from this from this bondage if you will and there's no evidence to that's certainly no evidence presented by the state in that she stayed out in the car when he thinking marched in the house to change his clothes and said she's out of the car by herself well that's a possibility and i don't know that i don't think the record indicates that but i could be wrong and indicate that when when he stop sat out in the car and waited for him starkly as i said kidnapping is down on a crime that's a continuing crime their number interesting cases that are in venue for example spring quarter united states has made it very clear that kidnapping is not kept can't separate it geographically by various locations it starts and it has an ending to it but it's not the mere fact that it crosses state lines the mere fact that all kinds of events occur does not in the kidnapping necessarily and the larson case really really makes  my client was appointed counsel on the twenty first and that's clearly in the in the court record that that occurred the next day without going to his counsel the state of nevada so let's get a improper consent for my c it doesn't exist and we've seen it the district court simply is wrong here that it wasn't aware apparently or was the media case and obviously missed it that's our position on this and that that search was improper that those weapons should not have been admitted into evidence you then move on the issue of course what prejudice that that that had on the case and in this case interestingly in closing argument the prosecutor pounded pounded on the table with the with the screwdriver he obviously felt that was important he wouldn't have done that that's kind of an unusual thing to see in a courtroom a screwdriver pounded into a table obviously he thought that was important to get to the jury to the point and obviously as we all know what he was doing was trying to present the case in the most egregious way possible and i would submit that this case although maybe superficially a clear cut case was not by any means a clear cut case particularly on sexual assault you have no physical evidence of sexual assault and you've got two witnesses diametrically opposed to what they're saying and notwithstanding the unpleasant context of this case i would submit that this was an important crucial issue and that those weapons and that pounding on the table could have had an effect on this jury and probably did to sway it on the sexual assault i've seen my evidence if you look at the evidence that was in fact presented in this case in the light most favorable to the prosecution there are certainly indications in here where the jury could conclude that the first seizure ended there were in fact two separate seizures and that would be consistent with nevada law under the definition or else two hundred twenty three one zero seven two describing second degree kidnapping as the seizure  taking caring away or kidnapping of another person against in any manner held the service or detained against that person's will so the argument that counsel initially presented that because  jury didn't find that the kidnapping was done with the intent to either commit sexual assault or intent to commit battery causing substantial harm or something is in fact a red herring moving on to the second ground presented the federal district court i don't think you can say that they decided counsel when they obtained the consent to get to search the obtaining of the search is not a testimonial circumstance and even if this court even if one were to examine this from the point of view as if the evidence had been suppressed you have the following evidence which shows that there simply isn't any prejudice at all apart from the inevitable discovery aspect but the petition in this particular case mr herring admitting hitting her with the screwdriver as a matter of fact if you look at the transcript like leave it so that excerpt a record eleven fifteen he has shown a photograph of the victim's abdomen which depicts the screwdriver handle mark and he remarks well actually i was trying to hit her in the legs or here or somewhere else and i guess i just gave her their s with and without the screwdrivers matter of fact at one point in time he had mitts he smacked her so hard in iraq or across the hood of the car on top of that her own physical condition therefore even if even if the prosecution did not have the actual my and the screwdriver there is plenty of evidence to show that a screwdriver was used he admitted it he can't and i now he admitted a knife was involved he can't deny that now and frankly after reading his testimony his own testimony  kidnapping kidnapping as construed chords with nevada law is entirely consistent this court has any other questions or believe that's all i have so  deadly weapon issue the defense attorney indicated that the screw driver pounded into the table had a devastating effect on the case he's the guy who was there he was the guy looking at that and having to deal with it in court and to say that that was  clearly a continuous offense and that the mere fact that he even abandon the victim at a bus stop if that doesn't end a kidnapping i don't see how a quick putting on a some clothes and continuing on to another location does i also my final comment be that i have a claim in here for for humor there and this is a case where i think that that claim is before the court and has some real merit and should seriously be looked at because we've got a number of claims here i don't want to stand back my opponent so i can't