rather glaring in this case credibility was the main issue there are no smoking guns here there's no physical evidence there's no confession credibility of the witnesses on the government's side we had to admit liars and on the defense side we had m effect but are ran afoul of the well established federal law that prohibits expert opinions on the issue of guilt for the simple reason that they're an accurate and that they're wrong but the jury gives them too much weight because the person is qualified with character evidence that he's the person who is likely to lie because you make these representations which what exactly was the question i've been able to find the actual transcript but the question so you have the house character as well it goes over a please the court good morning my name is lori cluster gray i represent the united states with regard to the first issue court did not abuse its discretion in permitting this millikan to give her opinion testimony at the outset i think it's important to note and clarify the record that her opinion was not based on a single factor it was not profile evidence so matter of fact it was based on a collection of factors starting in direct examination the prosecutor had post the questions to her by saying and this is that ten reporters transcript page twenty seven in your experience one of the classic indicators that stock prices rise based on a manipulative scheme as opposed to a natural market she responds i can describe you the things that we look for in market manipulation and then goes through a list five factors first we would look for particular firm a market maker that would be very active in the stock second we would look for the issuance of securities because oftentimes what complaints fourth we would look for any information that might have been put out by either a broker dealer or a company that might be considered false or misleading information customer silence meaning that customers are sold out of their accounts because they never paid for the st she responds we see issuers involved in terms of pain market makers to actually get involved in a stock we see issuers involved in terms of inflating financial statements or putting out information on the financial statement that's not accurate and we see  involved in terms of issuing stock to people who then manipulate the price and sell the stock out at a higher price on cross examination defendant than relying on miss milliken's expertise asked what factors would indicate that an issue or it's not involved in a pump and dump scheme in response to that in redirect examination are the three questions to which defendant and jets the question was posed and redirect at eleven reporters transcripts twelve twenty in your experience when the pump another scheme involves an issuance of star is it more or less likely that the issuer him or herself is involved in the scheme question is probably put forth generically it's name one it's gender less that is the question it's objected to sustain let's play a little broader foundation yesterday we talked about the different people that might be involved in a pump and dump scheme do you recall that yes and you told us some of the indicators of an issue or being involved in a pump and dump scheme and that's the whole list that i've just read to the court the question then is read by counsel here is in your experience is there any correlation between the phantom issuance being investment and that was discussed prior to the defendant taking the stand so that the parameters of the cross examination were very clear indeed the defendant did open the door the defendant didn't describe as a thriving company context first of all the defendant indicated that the press release contained figures of the portfolio companies or not he put that out telling them to just financial health that was one  may second when the stock fell because you knew it was going to fall that's right that's ties into his testimony as the district court found that he had said that he thought the star stock was artificially high he asked well did you do anything to try to get it back up aggregation of these portfolio companies that's what the press release included correct in fact it showed a significant increase from one thousand nine hundred ninety nine hundred ninety correct and that's what you're referring to your honor but here's where we get to find out that those numbers aren't exactly arthur andersen type of accounting that i don't know your honor i do not know at the top of my head you were saying the portfolio companies were worth more that means that the interest was worth more that's correct but that thing was then realized it wasn't like that if you actually got money from the portfolio companies redirect examination to go through why he believed he went into the methodology why these were cracked why these numbers work in the amazon who despite you know reporting a negative net worth makes billions in sales and he went through all that the government find g by the district court's ruling which was that nothing with regard to methodology was to be presented so it was five pages of questioning out of one hundred sixty seven pages of the cross examination and to the extent the court fin error in that cross examination and i'm certainly not conceding that but to the extent that the court believes that there was something wrong this is an abuse of discretion standard and i would argue that the that good looking at the harmless  here the evidence was overwhelming in this case that the defendant repeatedly and consistently violated all of the provisions of the offer in circular he held in violation of the offer in circular and actually shot himself in the foot with regard to that trial because his statement always been no no i didn't hold checks he had made that statement your honor to the sort of five public comment he had made it under oath to the f c c investigators here told that to prosecutors and suddenly at trial  is the fact that there is no indication that the figures are false there's nothing about any of these figures that indicates that mr merriam made them up with intent to deceive anyone the only evidence in the record is that accounting firms advice