three argument based on on the factors of a here the jury was presented with evidence mr just why there was one thousand nine hundred and two prior conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and i want to be clear that the jury was not simply presented with the facts of that conviction they did not simply see the judgment although they did that what they got was a detailed description to which mr jones what you ha clothing he attempted to rape her but her body was too small for him and that prior to that he penetrated her digitally for a while he wiggled his finger in there for a while and then there was discussion about how far he issue in this case because what was it issue in his case was simply very brief over the clothes touching of a young child between her legs and a well populated only birthday party what was that issue in the prior was something completely different and much more graphic moreover the prior absolute wonder whether the intent be the same in both incidences in terms of the intent to arouse one's else actually that that was provided by the f b i agent so the way that this particular poor fourteen evidence came in is the problem and so i point to the courts are cases in my braves where the court has approved fourteen evidence but because it was sanitized and here there was no sanitization all the details came that the government could have presented this information differently  so when it was litigated the most and what many papers the defense counsel specifically said this was far more serious and and graphic than what than what the charge conduct is so should not come to hand there was a point there review no no it's not your honor our position is that it's preserved and the government didn't argue otherwise in fact the government's in argue one way or the of other acceptance in the past it was sanitized and what i'm saying here is there was no sanitation and that increases the prejudicial value so that when you're doing the analysis here's how the government's going to prove its case then you have to look at how the evidence actually came in and how the evidence actually came in was in this fashion if any you have taken the stand this is a hypothetical by definition of tak i probably would make the same argument your honor but i think i would have a harder argument under the abuse of discretion standard if that answers your question i you know my position is that this shouldn't have come in and you have point out is that this evidence should not have come and how it came in was with the government's always with us was what the government presented and we objected to that and i'm continuing to object to that and i'm saying it shouldn't have come in at all what i  over the fire is is very graphic the details of the prior are very graphic and the other thing i would point out as i did in the beginning this was the nd witness this was the st thing the jury heard out of the gate about my client and the government used in their part of the jury in a very quick turnaround within five minutes he called the jury back again and so it puts those issues right in front of the jury's look at judges for guidance they want to please was wrong with that he made an error and nationally and i agree that he tried to but the problem is that he didn't fix what he actually did reprogram the jury on the importance of reaching a verdict and so by rea sanitized below of the defendant did ask for the evidence to be excluded but once the district court rules that the evidence would be admissible the defendant did not ask for this evidence s honour's this court has rejected the idea that this type of evidence should be sanitized in law may the court address this exact argument the defendant makes here and rejected the idea that the government should be limited court regularly affirms this type of evidence in the vast majority of cases where this court has considered rule for thirteen or for fourteen evidence in the car where there is a contacts offense like there was in this case in the vast majority of those cases the details of their prior crimes were admitted at trial very often through the testimony of the victims themselves and in every instance this court has affirmed the introduction of that testimony the therefore probative on a number of different issues st it established the defendant's propensity to commit this type of crime and it showed his unusual sexual interest in children that is not presen in ordinary people and not only it didn't generally show that but it showed d his specific propensity to commit this type of crime to touch a very young girl's genitals with his hand nd the evidence was very highly that he had a very similar offense involving a young girl and was convicted and it involved touching of private areas why do you need to go into how many case he touched the seven year old's genitals with his hand a moreover is jodi who asked about this goes directly to his intent that type of crime that was charged in this case where the defendant reached our him briefly touched but did you try the case decided your honor you didn't have to put that graphic evidence of al far as you think you're winning on to to achieve the stuff that you described all you had to do was have the agent your honor the government's position is that it did not go the lily the government presented this evidence through the testimony of the f b i agent rather than through the testimony of the victims of the government asks the district court  give a limiting instruction at the time of this testimony which this court has recognized in thornhill prevents the risk of unfair prejudice and the government reiterated to the jury both in opening and  three and to present this in a way that minimize the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant and again this is not this is not relief that the defendant sought below the defendant never  have the sanitised and the government believes that it presented this evidence in a way that minimize the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant the only two cases the defendants placed to support this argument that this should have been sanitized are fundamentally different because those are child pornography cases this is not a child pornography case this is a contact of facts moreover and one of those cases cited by the defendant the the jury learned of not only the fact of the defendant's prior conviction but also the fact that the victim in that case was the defendant's eleven year old daughter and this court affirmed the introduction of that testimony even though the court and it's own words f incest can have a rare power to disgust and in the other case cited by the defendant to support this argument the sheldon case again that was also a child pornography case and the defendant's prior conviction was also for child pornography details i understand your position your honor i will start with the necessity of the evidence because again i think that's where the details are most relevant  asked about proving the defendant's intact as i was saying earlier this is a case where his intent is less clear at all as it is less clear than it might be in other types of child sex abuse cases moreover when the defendant w asked when he touched the victim in this case whether he had an erection or felt one coming on he said no and so that further put his intent in the question and sure enough when the jury was deliberating it asked the court a question of required to prove the defendant's sexual intent when he touched the victim and the answer was yes the details of his prior offense and the government's view are exceptionally probative with respect to what his intent noted there is no bright line rule this court previously has affirmed the introduction of testimony that was forty five to forty five to fifty years prior that was in the medicine horse decision of the legislative congress anticipated that and i also think that the court looks at the totality of the circumstances and that these factors do intersect with each other and so one of the other factors is intervening circumstances and the defendant when he was interviewed in this case did talk about the fact that he doesn't go to children's birthday parties to avoid trouble and also that he doesn't drink alcohol because he doesn't want to lose control of himself and end up back in jail and i understand the that these were somehow innocent comments but the defendant did not say that he doesn't drink because he doesn't want to get in trouble he said he doesn't drink because he doesn't want to lose control of himself and up back in jail and when he was asked about touching the little girl in this case he admitted that it was something that he could not control and so what what those statements illustrate is that his propensity to do this was ongoing through in the intervening years and propensity is one of the reason that is evidence is admissible and so that plays into the length in time between these two facts additionally with respect to the frequency of events that the record illustrates that the defendant  this was not an isolated incident and therefore with respect to the frequency of a vent factor quote cuts in favor of the government and that's was the same some of the same situation here that even though th a soon as the court initial reading the model instruction it asked the jury does anyone want to copy of the instruction i've just read that is that your three hundred and sixty six that certainly conveyed to the jury that the instruction was over the court  also told the jury that it would provide a copy of the instruction that it was the continuance deliberations and would have a copy of the instruction that also indicated to the jury that the instruction was finished at that point of the court then completely shifted gears in told the jury you guys are on your own schedule and started talking about when the jury would take lunch i don't think anyone would argue that those comments the discussion about lunch was part of the allen instruction and it was only after that that the court told the jury if you don't have a verdict by four hundred and thirty back and continue tomorrow finally with respect to the actions that the district court took a to correct any error that might have occurred based on his scheduling comments the court did call the jury back almost immediately and reiterated to them that they did not need to reach a verdict in fact almost the st words out of this records mouth were i didn't want to leave you the wrong impression i didn't mean to leave the impression you have to reach a verdict that's it your and sixty seven the district court then told the jury if you don't reach a verdict let us know like you did before and as this court held and berger when the court makes a corrective instruction of the court neutralized the coercive effect of its earlier informal point that no matter how we nobody knows as far as what's in the record when that incident occurred except that we do know that it occurred before the one thousand nine hundred and one conviction so we are still left with a twenty five year  of the fourteen evidence is that may be the case in some cases that's not the case here the details here are nothing but prejudicial and that is the analysis that is my argument that the evidence that was presented is i'm julie prejudicial and i want to make that clear this is not a case where the details things out this is a case where the details do nothing but my clients the trial defense counsel offered to stipulate to  you know and i think because because this evidence is so different from the charge conduct you know you you have the lack of similarity you have the lack of meaning intervening circumstances the remoteness in time the lack of address you have to look at the evidence that was presented right i mean you have to look at how it came in a trial and the facts here is that the way it came in causes those factors to weigh in favor of exclusion in a way that maybe is more powerful than it would be less of a method to make that so yes you can use because what you're looking at is what were the details that came in and how similar was that how necessary was that particular evidence because you have to deal with what you have how the government was sanitized that's how it when they're going through their analysis they're saying well the precious wasn't so bad because a sanitized because the jury didn't get the gory details the reason in thornhill that they talked about incest was because the hands on offense had