to the heart of the case a close case so i think that the fact that the trial court just remembering this with the th amendment issue here just by trial counsel repeatedly bringing  went missing and he went on the streets and was arrested for prostitution not everybody understood the significance of that arrest the prosecutors said i'm disclosing  well there are a bit i may just push back on that little bit st you're right or you could call it propensity and i don't think that's correct but i think that propensity argument is recognized by the statute convictions within the prior three years are present their plea automatically admissible and then under the interests of justice clause my adversary at trial i think just completely misread the statu him crimes that are committed after that event that's on if they match the pattern and that's well settled on the room and i think that's the common rule so i was really taken a little aback by the appeals courts when they said well the reason you she was arrested for exact new drug offense would have been wrong this was something that should have been brought to the jury without it it was just a very very difficult defense why would honor the state courts on the merits rejection of the defendant's due process and confrontation claims and in this he b s proceeding are entitled to substantial deference and here in the state rape was certainly not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal as determined by the supreme court so the state court  this ruling under the state's rape shield law and under the supreme court's decision in michigan versus lucas in the act the supreme complied with anat case upheld the preclusion of cross examination on a rape victim's prior sexual conduct with the very defendant on trial so the supreme court held that the state had a legitimate interest in prohibiting such cross examination that might result in surprise rassmann delay of the proceedings here act to prevent the invasion of the victim's privacy surprises and here confusion of the jury by irrelevant we all know that innocent people can get arrested as well as guilty so it was irrelevant for that reason the nd reason is that he wasn't completely put clue did from cross examining her on what happened he did and the evidence that came in was not an assertion that she was not a prostitute yemen and that came in was that detective johnson had accused her that this crime was the result of her agreeing to engage in this act for money and she said that that was not the case that was limited to this crime it was it was her testifying this was a forcible act this was not an act of prostitution and the people didn't affirmatively say she's not a prostitute she's never been a prostitute ever and if you mention the prosecutor did not advance that argument she advanced an argument having to do with the evidence that came in and and contrary to what  my pony say the defendant did not originally say that this was an act of prostitution when st question by the detectives he said never been there he never had sex with a young woman on that day and only when confronted with d n a evidence linking him to the semen on her jeans did he change and say oh yes i did have sex but i offered her money and she agreed and that version of the advanced was a lie by the people's testimony which was that her demeanor after the parade when she arrived at her friend's door with her pants on buckled and crying hysterically but why that version of the events as did her hysterical demeanor when she arrived at her parents house and also missed by lied by the drastic change in her behavior from before the baby when when she was a normal child and after when she you know had a quick track stop talking to people holed up in a room tried to kill herself it certainly was not a close case in terms of whether this was a consensual act or an of prostitution and the defendant was not tonight the right to cross examine on other things he was not denied the right to inconsistency in fact put on detective johnson's testimony and detective johnson testified that she had identified a different person as the assailant i mean he had a chance to impeach her he had a chance to present his defense and he was not tonight due process by not being able to cross examine on something that was simply irrelevant and so for those reasons also any alleged error in the trial court's ruling was certainly didn't have a substantial or injury its influence or effect on the  because his his statements were were not believable and hers were backed up by much corroborating evidence including the do any evidence and therefore the courts ruling it's the application of federal laws that can only happen if it was only us that there's no possibility that fair minded jurors could disagree that the state court r has conflicted with supreme court precedents and clearly that's not the case here particularly since the district court found that the state appellate court had applied federal or correctly so  propensity in this case was this a case of door opening you know i would just like one court to look at this very complex case and strange things that happened it's not so her feelings were hurt and that's why she didn't cooperate detective johnson said that none of that happened and that was a fabrication so those were red flags number one and number two and as the court suggested