i don't have a whole life to add to what i have in my briefs however i would like to start by focusing on the first issue in the case now is the factual well they drew a conclusion and did it i believe they did find a fact in this case they indicated that the testimony the post trial testimony in in camera hearing i didn't answer the question very well very quickly and that is that the trial court found that the testimony didn't help either side as to what the cause whether the prior consensual sexual contact with another person because evidence medical evidence and essentially nothing else a scientist and well i did raise another issue and with regard to her prior claim that she was raped and rape medical testimony doesn't do anything to help but even at the end help the prosecution but it may not hurt them either so why is that so necessary but if i'm understanding what you're talking what testimony you're talking about the california supreme court refused when they granted hearings didn't i include that i made a motion to try and include that particular issue and it was not granted which is i still would argue this to the corrie that excluded evidence provides an innocent explanation for the injuries the world in the badge no injuries th occurred within a time frame where within a time frame jack could have been presented if let me try this way what they found was that that the evidence the cross examination that was excluded could have provided an alternate attorney the explanation for those injuries which could have raised reasonable doubt damage to the part of her tongue that was damaged which is an expert said could come from compulsory oral sex for which she had testified and that w strangled that's two separate questions let me let me answer the first one and the two experts that the prosecution put i both admitted that either of these injuries  jury could have drawn was that those injuries were caused by mr fein hannah and i think to me that that's the answer to that question now in terms of in terms of your second question and but the issue in this case was whether she was sexually assaulted now certainly the injuries that you talk about are circumstantial evidence which the prosecution could argue are evidence of a sexual assault find hannah had an explanation for that i believe that the law requires that the jury decide whether or not i she was sexually assaulted that was the charge and sexual why doesn't that cultural reference her credibility i e that her original claim was that she was raped in the traditional way so to speak and that she only later became vaguer about of that evidence to her credibility why is wasn't quite sure roughly relevant to her credibility the defense really they focused on the fact that she had changed her story and that's other compelling evidence the d n a of his saliva that matched his saliva on her neck showed that he was lying that he had never had sexual contact with her and then there was the entire defense that was completely rebut it in this case we're dealing with californians code seven eighty two and i'm sure that if in skirt evidence of prior sexual conduct by the victim can come in based on initial showing of relevance through a sufficient offer relevance then in the instance and i don't know the answer to that so then in the instance where we were trying to get the straight as she fell in the morning and at least negate the medical evidence that that that's what caused that about the most of the cases that we've briefed to deal with a confrontation past bad it's up to you know it's you know open ended question whether it's the right to present a complete defense is also part of that sixth amendment right it's a general right to pres court decision apply in this case and that under the california evidence code evidence to the seventh hearing it was not guilt it should have been held at the trial the issue is whether the evidence is relevant  evidence is relevant attack the credibility of the victim under seventy two which is kind of a similar e ratio one california if it's relevant to attack the credibility then it is basically a end for the simple a similar type of facts in terms of denial of the right to cross examination when one when a jury is presented you're told not to speculate but when you're presented with a prosecution argument you have the medical evidence completely corroborates her testimony and the defense has no answer to that other than well could have been consensual in the absence of evidence that there was consensual sex  i believe this circuit is held that it's prejudicial recurses jury is likely the only logical conclusion conclusion they can drive is that well if it was it was caused by these injur not by consensual sex i'm here basically excludes the possibility of the defense attack and credibility on that basis and you have to sit there as in this case basically defense counsel has said there you couldn't say anything about that i think that is significant prejudice in a case yes there's a lot of evidence of a physical assault but and the reason we have juries is that they get to decide credibility and i believe and i would i don't want to say it because probably would be appropriate for me to start off by saying that the california supreme court's opinion was a very strange opinion i had read it about twenty times and were it to understand what finish where i started now it is that they said the purpose they misstated the purpose of the post trial hearing and it misstated the scope of the post trial hearing and the reason that was done was the only way to reach a harmless error argument in this case and to say that that the error of the trial court really didn't matter if they used the word cured i would suggest that they needed a miracle cure