knew what was contained in a welded together car part that was in a suitcase which she readily admitted the instant she was asked that she had been asked to take from los angeles to iowa the government's theory throughout the case and was repeated often was that no one could be that trusting that she that she knew these militias to these are quotes from to me that the district judge would have to look at what the proper was and say well this was mostly designed to get sympathy for this poor lady she sound a lot of we have breaks men are treate was what she's done in the past is not relevant to intent or motive here unless you've got situations where she has done this very same thing in the past that might be relevant in other words the only specific instances of conduct that would be admissible under either four or five b or under four all four b would be if she were able to come in and say i was offered a drug deal in the past and didn't do it it would have to be a similar incident as opposed to evidence which would have shown that she took people in your home who betrayed her on repeated occasions evidence that she had a series of marriages in which she was the person who ended up being the she was the person who ended up simply trusting and yet she continued to take people into her home the prosecutor stated what the question was and the question was anyone this trusting th said oh i'll give you seventy bucks for food i'll buy your bus ticket and call me from iowa who said everybody who has known someone with a are stealing i am and this is something that i we've seen with a number of our clients has ended up with skills coping skills that have permitted her to mask her or her limited intellectual ability and court said no it's about the prosecutor then stands up in closing argument argues why this evidence wasn't before that where is the evidence greg where is the evidence there was no objection to that there was no motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of the government's case right and then you have this evidence that relates to low i q which clearly could have had some bearing on the issue but it's counter intuitive for folks who do not know people are who operate in this intelligence range but people who are in this range are silent when they're asked questions they continue to trust  that wasn't before the court that was not before the court and i regret that it wasn't and it's the reason that we have we have brought it before the court now to speak out loud the trial court to consider whether or not the jury  affected now the jury had a chance to hear that your client and to hear testimony from friends of hers that she was an extraordinarily trusting and goalball person and to hear the entire course of her contact with monte horseman and any explanations thereof they they might have acquitted they chose to convict aren't you asking us to look back and sort of second guess what they did they had on the issue of credibility no what i'm asking this court to do is to consider whether or not the court the trial court probably excluded the evidence one but two you don't need to reach discussion there of what happens when there is no objection and case was one of our offices cases as well there were repeated objections but on critical pieces of the prosecutor's final argument there was no objection and the court talks to not only the the responsibility of the specialist sponsibility of the prosecutor but also talks to the responsibility of the travel judge when that occurs because essentially what the jury was told was the defense attorney stood up in opening statement and  were all these these these things that happened in this woman's not life that might lead you to be able to understand her conduct where is the evidence the best analogy i can think of is if i stood out after a motion to suppress them and granted it would be prosecution they can't refer to our failure to introduce this right our office could asked have for that i would hope that a prosecutor would know that they shouldn't do that i don't i wouldn't i wouldn't need an instruction judge if i had  seventy two would you have charged case to be absolutely frank i don't know enough about that i q that i would have sought help from someone much smarter than me but that is the first something that's definitely concerning the as you can see in cross examination will me have two ways to look for him one was the cell phone which was a dead end and the other was miss consoles who did not provide any information for what could be many reasons what you think the street value of  quantities it was broken down and sold in the quarter is concerned about closing arguments and i think my comments were not quite what defense counsel says they were very few events cancel it sounds to me like their promise i was put in a difficult situation your honor where i had no chance to try to keep the stuff out in the beginning defense counsel as there was no prohibition against him from doing so but he brought it up for the first time in his opening and defense counsel was an experienced trial counsel and some of the stuff this clearly the appellate counsel doesn't even try to defend the fact she was beaten as a child the fact that she ran away from home the fact that her father died when was a teenager or boyfriend had sex with her sister these things are very compelling and sympathetic and i this court can understand the sympathies the jury may have because that i believe this court also shares the sympathies mean there was no way for me to tell the jury that they can't consider that except in closing and i did parallel the jury instructions in fact i quoted them saying the lawyers instructions are not evidence but the jury instructions don't tell you what they are if they're not evidence what are they and so on i made a reference to a promise something that it's not and i did try although perhaps i could have done much more artfully to tell the jury that there's no information before them about that that they can't consider some sympathy or specifically the things the fans council met in their deliberations and i even unlike some it's just fine for you to tell a jury that it's not a defense to the the gro charge that a person has had bad things happen to them and why and it's fine for you to tell  jury that they have to follow the instructions of the court the only thing that's problematic is when you tell the jury basically defense counsel said he was going to prove some things and you haven't heard any evidence of those things just on the street it's called a sucker punch when you know that they had it but it's of those things irrelevant as they might be and you succeeded in getting the judge to prevent them from putting on the evidence of those things and that's an issue that the public counsel didn't raise but admittedly troubled me when i read the transcript clearly this was that decision clearly is troubling given that here is the second allegation of prosecutorial misconduct and also with the same office but with a different trial prosecutor but vouching is a separate issue here because specific other nonsense you know here i was thinking this is no big deal and now i'm thinking gee maybe your office needs a lesson you can't do this you can't listen to evidence that the opening statements to they're going to prove get the judge to prohibit them from proving it and then say to the jury they didn't keep their promise made in prove with a promise you they would prove you can't make that a crowd technique the way you may or may not get slapped down for it in this case but you will you will it may be a much more important case the core of my case and then the case goes forward and the defendant offers no evidence to show that he would have his brother's house in the view you can man in closing argument say in his opening statement he said he was going to prove he was at his prepared to testify the defendant was at my house to interview the defendant is prepared to testify i was at my brother's house to interview and for one technical reason or another i had perfectly correct let's assume or incorrect it doesn't matter the crowd sort of says you can't put on any of that evidence at that point for you to say in closing argument the defendant promised you evidence that he was at his brother's house in dubuque an presented none makes it look like they couldn't come up with any and that tricks of the jury it's a fraudulent way to impose a result upon the jury because you tricks them into thinking there was no evidence when there was evidence but you kept it out you understand what we're concerned about now yes clearly it was not my intent to trick the jury by any means it was only my intent find jose is because they picked up the phone and said this is the metropolitan police department