second issue is whether the district court erred in limiting defense counsel's examination of the alleged victim in this case by preventing a recross and also by not allowing the use of a medical record to examine the the alleged victim with i would like to concentrate on the second of those two bases for the appeal during this argument this was a two day trial the underlying charge was sexual abuse of an incapacitated person the thing that was interesting about this trial is that there were no eyewitness testimony and no physical evidence indicating that there ever been any contact between the alleged victim and my client mr william red star there was no evidence of any energy injury no evidence that in fact the two people ever had physical  contact so the the evidence of the government did have was my client's confession and there are all sorts of problems with that confession which became the underlying basis for the motion to suppress that confession  but you had a situation actually beginning trial where you had no evidence except the defendant's confession however on the racks when the government was judge did allow that in that original piece of hearsay which is a critical piece of yours they because it shifts but it's not a point that you've raised here on appeal i did yes i did let i checked in on at that below that was hearsay and it's fundamental to this appeal because it's it's indicative of the unfairness of the decisions in that at the trial court level in other words this piece was flat and and the actual medical record evidence of that been getting this information and through the alleged victim was in response to the fact that the nurse wasn't there but it was a medical record it was a record that was produced for the purpose of diagnosing this person i saw it was admissible  used for criminal proceedings subsequent criminal proceedings so she knew about it but i think it's a fair characterization to say that she didn't know about you know everything that was in that page after page and that's what made it difficult to kind of cross examine her on it but it wasn't a medical record and i used it i was using it to cross examine her and inconsistency started to appear in the first one was about toothbrushing i think and  s a break occurred and i asked the there was a redirect i'm sorry there was a redirect and then a break occurred and out of the presence of the jury i asked the judge for an opportunity recrossed because i wanted explicit direction from the court about whether i could reference the medical records explicitly with this witness at that point the district court said no but later we had another kind of war dear outside  jury about whether i could call this witness on direct and use the medical record because there was a glaring contradiction between the medical records and what she had said and he had allowed the hearsay evidence com before but after this for deer he said it wasn't the district court judge but it wasn't the medical right it didn't fit with the medical records exceptions and also the nih my other arguments that it was a prior record a recollection that she adopted because of the signature anyway we went through several arguments we wouldn't fly because you've already told us that she didn't know all the information that you were right i made the argument your honor and it came out during for dear that's when it came out that she had not seen the other information in there so i think it was on that basis probably denied but it was a medical record and i don't think there's any way around it that's the sole purpose and  out there and i think that's what makes this important is that going into the into the trial there was no evidence of any injury there was no evidence besides his confession that any of this occurred and so there was problems with that that confession he had denied that he done it on for four separate times the law enforcement over the course of weeks they kind of kept after him and then they got him hooked up to a lie detector machine and then  suggest that he wasn't telling the truth then the f b i agent actually wrote out large sections of the confession and had a sign so that's how the confession occurred and that was when the reason i said it was coerced confession  he didn't do it many times to law enforcement and they kept their after him and they kept after him and during the use of the lie detector test they actually tried to take the stuff off of him at one point and then the interview and the interview kept going they land they let him take the stuff off of them and then they wrote this thing out and he signed it and he testified on direct that he was confused and scared and just want to basically everything that and that's what he said  on direct so he testified himself that it wasn't a true confession now given all of these problems with the confession it's not harmless error that this other evidence came in uncontested because had it not come in and i think would be a real open question whether a jury would say that was a valid confession in light of no other evidence you know were hesitant to on reasonable doubt that this man's guilty but with that physical evidence that came in should say if you're say evidence not physical evidence of physical injury without the contrary evidence indicated by the medical record that it wasn't was the first issue that i want to take take up with the court is the argument that there was really no evidence here other than the confession and we have a girl that jumps out of bed naked and makes a nine one one call and the officers arrive at a hotel room to find her so i hardly think that there's just his confession and nothing more the circumstantial evidence here was was really substantial and compelling as far as the confession goes a challenge the police officers do that was inappropriate and they did nothing here that was inappropriate other than to ask and i don't think it's inappropriate at all but they asked him to take a polygraph because he insisted he was innocent and during the polygraph he got agitated and ultimately said that he did it and anything at all improper and therefore the coercion argument should be should fall for that as far as the medical evidence is of course pointed out this is a problem that occurred in the defense and there was no motion to continue if they're going to try to get the nurse there when they realize that the government wasn't calling him there's nothing on the record indicate that they were going to try to stipulate the the record come in although i'm sure counsel would not have stipulated to that because there's going to be some you want the person there i mean the the issue that was brought up with the victim was a verbal conversation between her and the nurse and the medical record that said there was no injuries could very well but have been explained because as you recall from that that exchange the nurse had said i see a little blood are you having a period she didn't say there were injuries so there's nothing inconsistent about what came into the record and what was in the medical record so laser your honour's i just think that in this particular instance there was no error at all and the confession was probably properly brought in he was legitimately stopped as your honour's had been noted medical records just don't walk in and introduce themselves just because there's an exception for them if there's a proper foundation you can have no foundation they just let them in a little sit there because there should have been cross examination there  i don't believe so you're on the just just objection and the judge made his ruling that it was ok right that he felt that it would came in under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception thank you on this if you have no other questions that's all i have times just very rapidly so i don't have much time left the prosecutor mentioned there was other circumstantial evidence there were multiple people in the room that morning there were i think two or three other males in the room and two females so there was lots of people in the room so it wasn't as though these two were the only people in the room and she walked up and said oh my god i've been i've been r some of those people were missing their clothes so there's you know it's not clear at all from the circumstantial evidence that my client did anything or ever touched  i do want to note for the record that today as you correctly noted your honor there was a pretty developed exchange between the prosecutor and the alleged victim establishing first it wasn't the time for her period that the nurse had said that made these comments about the period must mean your period and then he closed his redirect with again and saw a confirmation that there was some sort of injury and it looked like her period but it wasn't because she wasn't having her period so it was i think offered for the truth of the matter certain tha