errors affected each testimony because this case hinged exclusively on witness credibility the cumulative effect of these errors warrant to new trial the first error i want to discuss is the district court permitted hill's rule for thirteen second at trial the ruling on this issue the court and knowledge that this testimony was quote suicide for the defendant but he was resigned to the fact that he couldn't really do anything about it under rule four thirteen and th the reason being is because the probative value here was really low we have a child who was touched on her but in her front those are her words and possibly over clothing she couldn't remember this is markedly different from what happened with the other children who claimed sexual intercourse on multiple occasions so here the evidence was marginally relevant and rule for all three requires the exclusion of evidence that is needlessly cumulative this specific testimony was likely to provoke an emotional response from the jury and when you stack needlessly cumulative information with minimal probable you on top of one another it  has the effect of being alternately unfairly prejudicial to mr keyes for these reasons the district court abused its discretion in permitting the rule for thirteen testimony the second  i will discuss is the district court limited deanne taylor's testimony which affected mr keyes is ability to defend himself he's attempted to address two points through taylor's testimony the first was the vi no the district court said that it was relevant so wasn't entirely collateral matter and but the that was for the second issue the second issue dealt with more of a foundation issue but this first one was relevance and the standard for relevancy is really low the evidence should be in minot if it has any tendency to make the fact of consequence more less probable and so mr keyes had also had a financial dispute with i  parents mother felt that he too owed them money and there was some she did testify that there was a heated exchange about that there's also some evidence of indigenous on high seas parents part towards happened while they were undergoing their financial dispute which is different from what happened during taylor's financial dispute with the parents is that during these financial dispute i see the parents were well aware that there was  allegation that had already been made so here they had with keys this case they had a specific opportunity to be vindictive to bolster h l c claim of of abuse that they were already aware of now that is that i see as parents at the time that keyes was leaving and they were having this financial dispute that i c's parents were aware of h l c abuse allegations so that sure i guess it would be more in the tone of judge carmen in handling an eleven year old child who is clearly scared and has a tent and you know the first couple times it please will you answer the questions and then finally it's this you know it was i think they're related that because of how there's two other errors that we've identified that we're trying to get your best take your best shot at point three but you can't say told you can't because you don't make a record i say you i don't know i don't  motion that in fact the there was a direction by the judge i don't have the transcript in front of me so i don't i don't know i do have an excerpt over there and so i can answer that question on rebuttal which i would like to reserve morning may please the court counsel my name's troy morley and i'm an assistant united states attorney representing the united states in this peel the united states is asking this court to uphold the jury verdict in this case finding the defendant guilty of that in his in his from his perspective mr keyes was was more more favored or treated i see more favorably than r c i don't know that it gets anybody anywhere but i can't see that it's i can't see that it's based on first hand knowledge and why is it irrelevant to this to this in this trial but judge i think that goes to the foundation issue and if you look at this first this information what's the lack of foundation if it's testimony based on his on his his personal observations and the inferences he draws from that that's not a foundation problem he if you read what the trial counsel and it was mr albright the trial counsel said it when he responded to that object and she goes he was going to show what shawn keys intent was when he was purchasing nobody knows what  keys intent was that was i don't know i don't know i have phrased that way you could so that that was the that was the reason for the foundation i i could tell you i'm taking a drink of this water because i'm thirsty or when it's really because i'm positive because i'm trying to think how to answer you judge and certainly mr taylor can say i believe he was doing this because they favored one child over the other well i see got up there she testified governments was grooming part of the government's case at trial or did that only come up at sentencing it was part of the case it was part of what was displayed and it was part of it and i would refer you to the docket i believe it's eighty three potentially relevant that his personal observations came in when it came to what the intent was that's when the objection was he doesn't know what the intent was i read the whole if i read his whole testimony else the attempted to get into the foundational it gets into the intent on them and but if you look there's a little but you know people testify about intent of other people all the time because the it's an inference that can be drawn you know the fact of the matter is when structure is that say that that you may infer that a person intends the reasonable consequences of the act performed right in so i mean i'm i'm really having a hard time with this whole analysis here that it's a lack of foundation what kind of foundation they say if i see you take a drink of water it's reasonable inference right and you know you still have a right to cross examine and you can say well isn't it just a reasonable inference as well that i want to spall so i can think about this for a while you know absolutely but this is a trial you know and it just seems to me that what's happening here is that there's these are very terse explanations and i understand abus discretion standard but that what he's really explaining what the problem is you know and in fact even the objection lack of foundation well that's not it the objection is it speculative right because he's going to speculate now the question is it   reasonable speculation but the record we have is a foundation i'm going to what foundation be a need to have that someone intends the natural consequences of his actions but we don't know what the natural consequences of his actions were in this case it was to keep ice he quiet about the sexual abuse he was perpetrating honor and i would also add judge erickson that the defendant in this case testified the defendant in this case got to say why he was purchasing he got to put forth that theory to the jury and isn't it a little different though if someone else substantiates that theory i mean that what defendants say may be deemed as being perfectly self serving what a neutral witness observe again if we can substantiate that this is his observations and this information did get in front of the jury i mean he did get to give his opinions except for when it came to the point why was dish on buying these things he doesn't know why does shawn was buying these things he doesn't he can say and he said he saw them treat or better he sam by these objects he saw the different treatment between the two sisters he said all that he testified all that wh he wasn't allowed to say is what the seans intention was when he bought these things because he doesn't know that he doesn't know what's in someone's mind he doesn't know what's in someone's heart he got everything else in and begin the defendant testified in that regard so there is no prejudice to the offended by not allowing taylor to say what his speculation you're correct i probably should have object to speculation in that one judge erickson but he there's no prejudice be shown himself actually testified to shawn himself actually said what the reason was pardon and why you objected you did was make for a lot of problems on appeal in in the heat of the trial your honor i've got one one person sitting up there trying to say why did sharon was mine these gifts in the defendant hadn't testified yet if the defendant himself wants to put that information maybe this is a timing issue if the defendant had actually testified in this was observations of what dion taylor had observed premature you know it wasn't judge i would agree with that so the question was i objected to and so in my mind it would probably be a premature thing if if the sean had already testified had already put this information in front of the jury i imagine my response and whether or not i objected would be a lot different but at this point the defendant had testified at all so the defendant was actually the last witness to testify in this case so it was almost vouching ahead of the fact for the defendant at that point which was not an objection i made it's just me thinking out loud to the court's responses so again you know with the record in front the information that they are complaining that does not get to the jury as far as dion taylor's testimony doesn't crack make it in front of the jury when de shawn himself himself testifies  if we want to i don't know if the court has any questions for me about the first issue as to the whole rent dispute that got talked about in the money stuff again this i would just respond to the court that this wasn't a trial the mother and her boyfriend were not on trial in this case or being mean to dion taylor whether or not they had disputes with money this was a case about the sexual abuse of two young girls and the attempted sexual  abuse of the four thirteen witness all who testified into this as the trial counsel and i don't want to go outside the record definitely judge magnussen but there really wasn't a tone problem you can't see that in in the cold albright was actually here arguing so he could confirm that but this was just a district court trying to get a very scared young lady to respond to questioning even after that i would say painful pause would be probably a more accurate description a lot it we and ultimately ended up having to have her use the anatomical diagrams the on mark atomico diagrams which were part of the exhibit lists to have or identify some of these we couldn't elicit that testimony on of or and it the record does reflect me attempting to get her to talk about the anatomical diagrams and i think judge korman pipes in more doesn't matter what she calls it she's identified it and sort of being admired examination of that witness at that point so the court does not have any other questions for mr albright said that he objected because he quote felt it was improper and that i wanted to make a motion for mistrial because it's telling a witness to it's an encouraging a witness by telling her to answer the questions and get off the witness stand so to me the encouraging language is a imply the tone when i read the transcript and that's the direction we want the briefs and that's what the record states in preserving his motion now this is a cumulative error argument and so if the court doesn't have to find all three errors there are three victims that testified and we addressed errors with each one had the rule for thirteen evidence been properly excluded and the