is that mrs marshall that the alleged victim stated that she was partying with a group of individuals she came home and she was not intoxicated and went to sleep she also said that she has no sleep disorder she then indicated bat for a period of either two to fifteen minutes she was great also her for this rape occurred  true and she didn't know she was being sexually assaulted for such a period of time how many could she did a version of events where she tells how long it took place in other words either illusion of events that you take that road to go down and have expecting him to recant to confess which the kurds have universally how it will find it does not have to confess and you cannot be punished for not confessing in sentencing in order to preserve its constitutional right to and at least some shots before that i recall she did and then she said she ate and when she went to bed she was still there so you have to ask yourself were she running about a she lying about being sober if you're lying about transparent and apparently these pajamas were fairly old because there was a hole in the crotch now clearly this woman was asking to be raped right the court in this case was that the defendant refused to take any responsibility for what happened that night he told the defendant that if he didn't want to accept the jury's verdict that was fine but he shouldn't go defense fight was on his own hands and until he took responsibility for his own actions he was going to nowhere but fail because we have not accepted one bit of responsibility for this so contrary to the claim in defense reply brief you can take responsibility for something without disavowing your innocence defense counsel in closing argument bandit in this case didn't even apologize even if it's an apology for i'm sorry if you misconstrued my actions he blamed her all the way through even his and his allocation now cream clerk noted that while past about evidence of past criminal conduct is often not admissible at trial it is relevant information at sentencing and it goes on going to the court we have no way of knowing whether or not thing i'd like to next talk about defendant's claim that the victim's testimony was contrary to logic as well as the laws of human nature and experience his argument is based on basically two things one is he argues that no one could sleep through these initial phases of intercourse he also as you noted this young woman had a lot to drink that day she had several shots of tequila she had some champagne and an entire bottle of wine she did say that she believed she was and they're not so i think she qualifies for the answer by believing that she i think i have a reasonable interpretation for the jury to have made is that she was not then she partied some more and if that's a hard day and it's not surprising that she slept very soundly and did not wake up quickly she also agreed that it took her a couple of conviction reversal i'm relying on the black letter law but done by our supreme court that says something that testimonies inherently implausible and violates the laws of universal human experience then it should put forth the standard of the view that i think best favors my client but under the one mentioned in my reply brief we were under the traditional the one that's more often applied right now i still think same result obtains aware of but it was having her pants taken off and also being visually stimulated and then had a better way and of course for up to fifteen minutes it's true that she said it's possible she wasn't certain if it was fifteen minutes but she did  s it was really about not taking responsibility for his actions rather this to just apply simple logic how does the defendant take responsibility for the ass he says he doesn't did not commit to do