continue first the question in a daunting question before the jury that had to be answered alternately is why would a young girl eighteen years old eight years after molestations purportedly occurred come forward and suggest and accuse her own call of community of committing those molestations the government knew it had a daunting task when  when they came forward presented testimony from an expert witness about the late reporting syndrome presented testimony obviously from the victim presented testimony from the  motion and that is probably in our church or at least stated in the in a priest what i'm talking about is the allegation that the victim in this case at the same time she was making allegations that individuals and then the morning was to believe that the rave never occurred would be a week later she submitted a written apology note to the sister of the two brothers that she was accusing and that the the brothers would both take the stand to say that i never had any such relations with you mean that they didn't associate with her and they weren't  i have to take a look your honor at the motion that was filed under seal that i did not provide perhaps the only thing i didn't provide in the excerpt of record was just field motion where he does say incident occurred in january february ninety eight that that out of the right hands to that in the house like it's a year before she has she's trying to make these explanations to her boyfriend it does  disclosure and the apology notes or it's a week or two i don't remember exactly but it's about three times to get in the evidence that she said this before turns out she were tracks and later you want to conclude from the retraction that the national charge was a lie right and you're trying to connect it up and say you know she had a pattern of making sexual abuse charges because that was your explanation to her boyfriend asked why she's infertile that's why she charged against the family brothers that's why she charges against mr saunders that's correct and i would love it if she makes the charge mr taylor brothers a year before she's beginning to date the boyfriend and making the explanation and making the charge before me about sonders who got a timing problem with judge i would i would concede that at the same time if i'm wrong i'll i i don't have it with me and that's the problem with it with a case like this i'm going to go forward with the argument on the supposition and now knowing the law under only knowing the law that you have to really connect it up with the defense theory of the case that it was at the same time period because it would seem to me that if you exclude that type of evidence this court is being put in a position where it has to remind the government ten or ten years or so crosbie being the last time it reminded the government that when evidence is counter you laid it to cause a jury to doubt or have reason to doubt then it's confession here is a lot of evidence on the confession and there's a lot of evidence trying to explain away the confession as well and again the confession arose out of circumstances where the defendant in this case the opponent's case claimed not to understand english as well as the investigator party understood english but that's all that's only that's only that's only one confession you have a second one to the family you have a family confession as case or rather of the people who are heard what was going on it was the devil made me do it and then when the defendant was explaining why he would make such a statement at the forgiveness ceremony he was saying that  at a time frame closer to the time question we don't know whether it was before or after she was eighteen randy had done something to initiate sexual contact and he had been feeling guilty about it and he had she had taken his hand and put it inside her clothing someone or something interrupted that and then he pulled his hand away and she went outside the door now it was that act that i would submit to you that the jury could have  explanation for the forgiveness ceremony yes well he testifies not directly to the that being the explanation for the forgiveness testimony forgiveness pheromone but he testifies to any incident that occurred around the forgiveness ceremony during that time period but he did with the question about the forgiveness ceremony i think on cross examination he was questioned about the forgiveness star moment he didn't deny any of the testimony concerning what people heard him talk about that they heard him say of the examination and cross examination dealt with that whole issue and to the extent he was being cross examined on it he never admitted that he had he never admitted to anyone on cross examination that either said during the forgiveness harmonix or in any other time there's also testimony that is that the defendant obviously is hard of hearing which goes to some sensing issues later on down the road but there was conflicting testimony about the defendant's proficiency in english proficiency was good and i think they understood one another navajo this statement however was written in english and then there was testimony that the defendant testify that that investigator joe actually wrote out the statement no i don't think so i don't think you have to you have to go that far i don't think you have to say that he made up the story i think as a law enforcement can and do do from time to time to become a bit jealous in their in their reporting of what they h or believe the defendant had said to them in this case they were dealing he was dealing with a man who was hard of hearing he was dealing with them in two languages but there's a big difference between saying i had sexual relations with  of that confession that up about the fabric of the same thing judge that when when speaking about the events that occurred between brandy violating and the defendant in this case there was apparently according to the defendant's testimony some initiation of sexual contact between the defendant and brandy and that's for which that's what gave rise to the guilt now when  joe goes out and speaks with the defendant about having ever had sexual contact and apparently sexual intercourse from the record is a very difficult term to translate in amabel and you can see that if you refer back to gary toms testimony in any event you could see that in an investigator who was being jealous even perhaps overzealous about what he was hearing in english this simply didn't happen that there was no sexual contact yes yes the one nine hundred ninety three contact did not happen so so in other words the difficulty of translating any precise way in the term sexual intercourse much had to make it up no no i don't think so let me let me try to explain it a different way we have an invest we have the first reporting of the incident occurring in one thousand nine nine hundred or ninety eight depending on whether i'm wrong about that seal document and then we have granny going out to law enforcement finally law enforcement coming to brandy and we know that law enforcement came to brandy law enforcement coming to defend and i apologize after the forgiveness ceremony so we had to strip given the ceremony going on and law enforcement coming out and talking to the defendant and my recollection i don't have an exact date of when that statement was made but that statement was made at certainly after the forgiveness ceremony four vs you dealt with the district courts allowing the defendant right rather allowing to do the victim to testify about their being many events and using the inextricably intertwined n unlimited ruling in the in the ruling was was a strange ruling it first said that it couldn't be done not until i say otherwise and then the government proceeded to argue why she should be able to refer to other events and then the fans objected and then the court came back said i'm not going to give any more analysis on this and i'll answer i'll do this by a question by question basis then i provided all of all of granted testimony here intentionally because i think both parties and i give credit to the government on this to the prosecutors very careful to refer to the first event as the february event the second event march event in the third event as the junior got even though when she first reported to law enforcement she had confused events or she cordelia confused events depending on what you were looking at on cross examination the defense counsel was in referring to the events in question and the events in these statements and did not go out of that it those time frame of those time period three time periods the prosecutor however misheard misunderstood became incensed i don't know how you look at it she immediately gets up and starts cross examining or it's really a cross examination they're leading questions but they weren't objected to with the victim in this case and start asking about were there other events did you did you for example have other events in your mind when you were talking to officer judge dodge the first time was one of the question she asked more than one more than two more than three objection all rules i mean really kind of things that were going on finally the judge takes a stride bar the prosecutor argues that the defense open the door by suggesting somehow that grand he had hidden these other two events from law enforcement judge there were three of them start were alleged in the indictment when she first came forward she said it happened in june that was in  so it seems to me that he had every right to take those three different statements directions attention to those statements extract what she told law enforcement without risking opening the door to her being many questions underlying facts of whether or not the victim was alone with the defendant in his truck transported back and forth from of church rival but whether or not the custody had to be given to the factual situation but whether the care custody and control was given to mr saunders did not state situation i don't have that information because it is possible some teenagers are allowed to go there go here in there on their the underlying facts of whether or not the victim was alone with the defendant in the truck and no one else is considered that's not contested he only challenge whether or not custody had to be given to the defendant in order for that and hanson it to apply and the district court found that that was not required for the enhancement merely the fact that she was with in his because he was driving her back and forth between her home and church revival alone with no one else but that's what i hear the words share but she's not your honor that that the facts in this case it was clear the testimony was that she want the victim wanted to go to the church revival the defendant was going to the church revival the mother of the victim could have done it in public your honor however if the jury convicted the defendant of this count and there was no testimony at all from which it could have found it was in public then that would be an in factors at asset out in cook but the factors must be at least authorized under the sentencing guidelines and only not expressly prohibited by the sentencing guidelines here if you want me to be unsafe seventy tell me abstract question what do you do if life expectancy is a relevant factor in whatever case it is and if it turns out that someone has actually are only doing a good job and is trying to predict life expectancy will tell me that the average life expectancy for a male of the strace is why the average life expectancy for american male of their races is easy i can look at that number you cannot your honor because it is specifically precluded by the expectancy of five and a half years but surely that doesn't have people live longer but guy goes to the illness the health of the defendant it does not go to race or national origin you can be black at least according to the defendant you lied about when she charged him or brothers guess right now if we're trying to figure out this case a fair amount of this case rests upon the credibility of the complaining witness and vict absolutely and why is it not relevant to her credibility in this trial that she might have lied on a prior occasion whether or not the government's theory she lied because it's part of rush when i see your boyfriend guilty or she's just a liar about sexual abuse why is that not centrally relevant let's say if you had evidence in your file of a prior lie by this complaining witness who is your crucial witness on sexual matters and sexual abuse and the  was no evidence that it had ever been reported even if we assume that it was that the proper was true and the government's not conceding that but there was no evidence that it had ever been weeping to anyone but it was not error by the district court to preclude that information when it found that it was far probative value was far outweighed by the prejudice ignorant doesn't mean necessarily inextricably intertwined it's just you're saying that this happened over and over again you charge three of them and i think it's entirely possible to understand the three inexplicably intertwined that it needed to be able to bring those out to give a true picture to the jury but i didn't bring them out examination by mr glanzer he was very careful to elicit testimony contradictions within the context of the statements that were introduced on direct examination only he did not refer to anything other than the three