thank you your honors carolyn weekend for the federal defender's office for mr foray and i will try to reserve two minutes for rebuttal your honour's in this case mr for i was charged not only with multiple practice when she worked as a prostitute to initially direct for a customer to drive her to a remote location where they could avoid police detection because  cross examination now in conjunction with its rape shield law california has a procedure that does allow a defendant to attack the credibility of the complaining witness for introducing evidence of the complaining witness is sexual conduct in the past i take the position that the evidence you want to treat introduced evidence about the initial steps in the prostitution transactions was not actually sexual evidence but even if it was the actual evidence mr ford can fly the californias notice requirement this distinguishes this case from nevada versus jackson and michigan the lucas where the supreme court recognize court's ruling clear may i show if i do ask her about the conviction and she admits the conviction does that preclude me from going to the conduct and i think that what he needs is the conduct which they've been talking about of for start these transactions by directing her customer to drive her somewhere or do i have to wait until she denies the fact of conviction and to be able to bring us to serve to be able to prove out the ultimate conduct and the court says i think you have to wait for her to deny the conviction so i think what the court is saying is that if she admits the conviction you cannot go into questions about the conduct meaning directing the customer to drive her so so my question is and thank you for pointing out this my brief i talk about the back and forth where the judge says you know you can't use this to prove consent and he says i want to use the driving to prove that she consented to the transportation not consent to sex so i think that is what the back and forth is about i think you got to my question thank you so your on this again i believe that the fact that he wasn't allowed to go prevent irrelevant and unfair harassment of a complaining witness but here the evidence our client wanted to admit was relevant to the defense's theory with regard to the kidnapping and ransom and no one disputed contend it didn't actually involve the sex act but actually a sort of commercial transaction a conversation about negotiating a commercial transaction actually sex didn't happen in any of the that my client actually wanted to introduce it was not offered for the point of consent to sex but consent to transportation and the jury was already well aware that ms o sometimes worked as a prostitute she said i sometimes worked as a prostitute she admitted with two prior convictions so given that the jury already knew this this fact that our client wanted to admit into evidence or to cross examine about would not have further down and then in the reply brief also on all of those cases involve defendants who are as tempting to introduce evidence to prove the witnesses motive to lie in the supreme court has recognized that proving motive to lie is a core element of the confrontation clause this case presents a far different a far different scenario or the defendant in this case is attempting to introduce evidence of an extreme reasonable for the state courts to say that it was that the potential for prejudice outweighed the probative value why why is that her her position as i understand it is that this individual wasn't shielded from much victim was supposedly prostituting herself only two of which resulted in convictions and only three of which involve the victim actually getting into the cars of the undercover officers so in order to establish  trial court's decision on the merits in the first place what if it was a reasonable decision on the defendant's side of the balance we never disputed that it would be relevant but on the state there is the interest in the rape shield laws not only about staring victims from under certain person and which is involved not only the embarrassment but encouraging them to come forward and report crimes and knowing that the trial is not going to turn and that is at least reasonable the i'm not just saying that everyone would agree with that but it's a reasonable position and and judge thomas just beyond the fact that the court of appeal took your position that is a great question what is the difference between a roni is and clearly unreasonable you know i certainly think the california court of appeal for the third dca has many fine jur basic right to present a defense not only cross examination but just presenting a defense and having a fair trial it was utterly got it in this case the council could i could i you know if you there forgive me for interrupting but when you say it was overly sex for money that that argument was need in closing the jury was instructed about what kidnapping requires transporting her without her without her consent was it really gutted or wasn't the argument made to the jury well you know here's what the prosecutor was able to argue that our client couldn't counter he says you know notice how mr ford did not take her to the mall or a public place he took her to the most secluded place he could so that he could do this now as i said in my brief the prosecution is allowed to run with that theory but our client was prevented from saying well there's all these evidence about the way this happened that this started out as a prostitution transaction i think most people don't know the details of how those work i didn't really before getting involved in this case and the idea that one of the first things that happens is let's go somewhere secluded is something that our our client say look this is how she's done this transaction three times if you agree with me that this started as prostitution the whole reason for going to the secluded secluded place was that this is what she directed her customers to do right and i understand that as opposed to what you are going now which was really just trying to do a more limited examination well i think that you know the rape shield law was complied with because our client did give notice and have to explain its relevance and the state had an opportunity for this hearing beforehand if it questioned that accuracy of the evidence which it didn't in this case and so in that sense the idea of surprise  unfair harassment was avoided because we'd be pointed out it's relevant i think if you look at what i quoted in my brief from the trial attorney he did say i when the judge said you can't let them in for consent is said but it goes to the kidnapping and the california court of appeal actually said that it understood that it goes to kidnapping too but it just said but you know it's precluded by the rape shield law so i think that they used it as just sort of almost you know i would if i had to pick one i'd go with davis versus alaska for the idea that a state can have an evidence sherry rule that they are following but when it prevents  from presenting relevant accurate information in support of the defense from cross examination then that state policy is outweighed by the defendant's right to cross examination