of the government using hearst person singular pronoun i to describe his personal impressions of whether when this is where truth or lying and whether or not they were credible prosecution claims that  witnesses in his personal opinion are not credible but that his witnesses were credible and just as an example he says at the bottom of page four of four talking about gloria greene one of his key witnesses she got up on this stand in told you the truth the recent ninth circuit opinion that came down this year which has valjean remarkably similar to the fallacy that occurs in this case particularly if we look at the value that occurs at the beginning of the government's reply argument for twenty one for the government sets up this dynamic of whether these individuals to believe the defense and to acquit my client ethically these individuals the police officers came in here and lied to everybody including the prosecutor and it's a big conspiracy theory goes in the same dynamic about gloria green under a plainer standard of review and i will note that the colmes what comes also established as i understand you say that if the prosecutor says the things witnesses were lying that is if you i believe there are a lying if that is valid and i understand it's a high standard for the prosecutor to live under and prosecutors are under serious constraints when they argue they cannot use colloquialisms that common people can use and they can't even use the same language that the defense attorney can use and why is that because they're painted with the incriminate you're the government they stand out there as  representative of the full force and might of the united states government the jury understands that they give the prosecutorial if you have to give a prosecutor to benefit the doubt a lot of credibility when the prosecution makes personal assurances using that pronoun first person singular pronoun to four twenty two this is a case for even the government's answering brief if you look at the thirty six the government's answering brief they have made it tell the court this case essentially reduces the whether mr or mrs green was lying to the jury credibility  when this is absolutely paramount to this conviction to the government's case and evidence the government values for mrs green and denigrated mr green using my personal opinion they value for their witness and destroyed our witness credibility using answer that question the government knew all along when they filed their i would say misleading answering brief if you look at the end of my reply brief i submitted as an addendum the police report in this case i also found that with a motion to supplement the records that it is the government of put ok but then again then there was a search right right and they found the silver tape on the bathroom on top of the toilet with twenty two caliber rounds and then it then it says aaron green was to answer questions that are answered that are asked it just it makes no sense at all that there is no nothing in the case law that puts any onus on the defendant to make spontaneous statements of innocence and what's also interesting about the gehring green basically has to mean on the stand he exercises right to remain silent was not reported seven reasons i didn't say anything and then it goes on page three fifty two we have three separate questions on one page all in violation of  governments of putting this this issue into play when they in fact know that ransom now this court will decide whether it's going to take cognizance of that document that is my position is the why cons that should be taken the questions themselves are highly questionable and a prosecutor should have known that what he was asking was improper and he shouldn't be able to hide behind the fact that there's this sort of evidence in the record to prove that what they did was unconstitutional one fact you know that was that's so we have the balancing we have the dual error that's not although we go on to issue number three the nine eleven transfer the government introduces this transcript green's call to the police highly prejudicial information about the nothing pounce allegations that nine eleven transcript  and the government in their closing argument relies on that transcript and says look at the transcript that shows that are witnesses credible so there are going to the jury that it's miscible as i guess the parkinson's and statement when the court order to hold it wasn't filled a highly prejudicial information if you want to read got that's what the government's theory is that it was introduced only to show that she didn't write the state could not have been done by deleting everything but the signature of that in every one of these lists most in the public and we object the defendant's entire case at trial was premised on the visceral attack of gloria greens on truthfulness and also the officers on truthfulness essentially gauri green committed perjury which took the stand and also at least one of the officers committed perjury on the stand second point is the overwhelming evidence in this particular trial was that the defendant was guilty of this charge the jury deliberated less than two hours we had five impartial law enforcement officers that testified away from him the same gun that he gave to joe marin zano two days before we have the un contradicted testimony of steve kennedy that that was his gun that it showed up at mr green's house a month before by an employee of him  his gun he recognized that gun in the courtroom he theorized that that gun arrived at that residence some months before when he came over there to see mr green and his wife along with his wife mr kennedy's wife and cliff was their action suspicious he went looking for was he did not on that particular night he came up with that theory actually your honor and testify to that if the evidence was so overwhelming as you stated to the and you have so many witnesses to prove that it was open and sh this particular case in that particular case there was there was no there was no direct credibility problems with any of the witnesses there and in that case if you're if you look at the record there the prosecutor in that case put on the why the defendant was on the stand on cross examination made him admit that the agent was lying but that's not all that happened the district court judge interjected on cross examination and asked the the defendant to evidence was not overwhelming in that case it was a very very circumstantial case the jury was out at least three days in that case very circumstantial completely different from the facts here and if you read the opinion in combs and what they talk about the prosecutor opening his own door going after and making the defended admit that the agent live that's why it was wasn't common in the end i think this would be a different case your honor if they had not gone after the and done the visceral attack on gloria greene and the other witnesses if they had not gone after their own truthfulness i think this would have been violent but you only got to think about this going green was called a pathological liar she was accused of forgery which is a felony choose accused of lying in a court document regarding a restraining crossed and i don't believe it was crossed through and i think if you look at how it's defense counsel crosses the line is that allowed a thousand though i've never heard that concept well i think there's a concept of writing the scale and invited reply and i think there's a whole line of that go through what a prosecutor can do in inviting reply i did invite reply never included vouching i think that is there's no such case well your honor i would argue that if you look at the line of cases that we cited in our brief i don't think the government crossed the line here this was a different factual scenario when you look at the visceral attack on the witnesses here to say that the the green committed perjury that the officer committed perjury had to be appropriately responded to by saying that you personally don't believe the defense witnesses but believe the government witnesses is that the appropriate response your honor i believe that it didn't cross the line here i think there's an appropriate you know i didn't  just simply arguments of the witnesses you know arguments of the of the lawyers and that's what they should be referred to it they also gave jury instructions telling the jury that these other acts that occurred here he's not on trial for those  traded me that gun that's his testimony that was arm contradict it so for a jury to be out less than a not two hours i think is completely appropriate when kids testimony is completely consistent with gloria greene's with all the officers and with the statement that came in and also hear this case in a vacuum there's a number of different facts here the jury is going to wonder why gloria green tipped these bullets under a bathroom sink why if she went through my view and i think it came out from the evidence is as she testified this was the final straw she had had enough she'd been able to calm him down before but this went over the line and on that morning she asked for the bullets after the previous evening when the incident occurred and in the middle of the night he hit her in her bed she got scared when he asked where's the bullets that she took the initiative to grab those bullets were actually scared without him knowing and hide them in the bathroom area the jury would want to know why why was she doing that that has to be no it was she because she didn't know where the gun was at the time she didn't want him to find that gun wherever was as she didn't know where it was that at that time she theorized later that maybe at joe's house it may still be in the house where he hid it do you fear of his using the ground against her she came up with that as she thought through the process that i remember him going down there a few days ago so that's one issue that needed to be addressed in the journey here but she has some doubt whether the gun was the house because she told the police officers  out exactly like that because there may be some believe that she wasn't telling exactly precisely well getting back to your original point i think the jury needs to find out why those bullets were there and also regarding the need for other testimony regarding  was in are strictly intertwined she apparently had this gun and bullets in the house a month before the jury's going to wonder why didn't you call police on your husband that bullet knows guns were in your house a month before when they were brought in there why didn't you call police well she textual testimony at the trial statement well you're right that gets to when he took the stand a leavened different times he said that statement was not written by my daughter i swear on my mother's grave was his quote that that officer  did you have in the comparison writings that were authenticated by the child that was submitted to the jury so they could make a leap over pinion as to the compare ability of the writing no your honor of why this was not his daughter statement and she really opened the door to this particular statement and but for his statements that he had written statement of the daughter would have never came in it would have never been brought in if he if that would have been if that would have been recommended i think that would have been appropriate your honor at that time so you know sometimes we use hindsight which is really fair and i think in the end right in hindsight i think it's that recommendation of into put forth i think that would have been wasn't only that it went to prove the officer didn't lie and that this was not falsified in the committed perjury that in fact this was you know hand written by the daughter your honor i would also add your honor in looking at the overwhelming amount of evidence that was present in this case i would also add when the defendant took the stand the government intended to bring up his prior five felony convictions and the judge in abundance of caution restricted us we couldn't even bring in the fact that a month early had been convicted of the same evidence was overwhelming in this case and i believe that's why the judge didn't do it he didn't allow he handcuffed the government because the evidence was overwhelming in this case or on the evidence was so overwhelming when you tried a case like a choirboy and just let the jury call the shots that of well  all attacks by the defendant all of these things they need to be probably and i agree with you judge if none of this has been brought up regarding the untruthfulness in the in the visceral attack on her it would have been valid but it had to be a properly responded to in this case and it combs specifically addresses this and by the response argument the government keeps making they keep talking about holmes but they didn't look at the case because the case there is that there is no invited  exception you cannot balance for witnesses period invited error may have some relevance but we evaluate the statements for whether they're prejudicial or not but certainly defense counsel can attack the credibility of witnesses and that gets back to that how strong is this evidence this he gave it away and gave it away to a man allegedly who was having an affair allegedly with gloria great but how is that relevant and says on or about november twenty eighth it doesn't say at the time of the arrest particular issue now you're right i think there's nothing wrong with that with them charging it that way my point is that the fact that he voluntarily relinquish it makes the case and usual and also makes it more difficult to prove and we're talking to gloria greene we're talking about a woman who we were not cross committed a host of other errors in this conduct that prevented us from receiving a fair trial this was indeed a close case it was clear the conviction should be reversed thank you thank you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision and we will now hear argument in the last case for this docket