case is that mr charlie was a violent drunk who assaulted her boyfriend because that's what she does this was the only reason the government offered for why she would assault why a friend not acting in self defense and so i'd like to start with the propensity for each chain of reasoning connecting the prior acts evidence to the charge crime the government has not done that here in fact the explanation they offered was a propensity explanation that the fact that she  did these things before helps to show that she did it here well it only helps to show that if you infer that she had a propensity to do that is now neither of the two incidents here are the incident which she kick causing him serious injury it doesn't show neither actual intent because what she would intend to do with respect to somebody else doesn't say anything about whether moral decay attacked her ah causing her to reason the well your honor it doesn't say anything about what moral decay did it doesn't say anything about whether she had a reasonable fear of a gay if you see if the government says well she intends to do this sometimes that's likes sitting close family members that's that's character evidence that's her character she likes hitting family members that also oh i think intent would have to show what she well what she intended to do here she admitted she intended to hit more all the gay there's no question the only question is why she did that and so and so i you know i think that's if she has a tendency to do something or to act a certain way that's a propensity she has a propensity to do that now the government also argues show a lack of mistake or accident but again she didn't argue that it was fake or an accident that she hit him she said i did incident the stepmother incident clearly didn't involve any crimes and didn't even involve an assault and then had a incident it's unclear at unclear at best started it had actually said she pushed st on her testimony was consistent in that she was the one who started the physical altercation and this was a stream of the prejudicial there was detailed testimony about a specific thing that she did the government introduced evidence  whereas there's no evidence that she was even arrested so this propensity argument both respect for a four and forty three was emphasized in the government's closing when the government explicitly invited the jury limits the evidence that the defense can introduce underfloor for a character evidence that they can introduce to opinion or reputation testimony it then in turn if the defense does that limits the government's response of evidence to committed against her or acts and she witnessed or knew about not unrelated acts might have committed against you know other people that she had no knowledge of just acts that she had knowledge of are admissible because they acts that she described were not about his reputation for violence in the community it was in her opinion as to whether it was use violent yet these were specific things that he did that caused this year for her life so if the  allowed the government to introduce evidence ah through opinion or reputation that she was violent which the stepmother did that's wholly separate from the specific acts that big a committed against her  to not attack the alleged victims character and yet shielded from disclosure equally relevant evidence concerning the same character trait of the use well your honor that refers character evidence and under for a poor character evidence admissible to prove character so i think when the commentary is referring to character evidence they're referring to the type of character evidence that's admissible would choose opinion or reputation testimony i want to try to  i'm sorry i want to try to highlight why this is harmful and address the most critical misconduct issues and this is harmful because the government had no other explanation for why she would do this is that she had her boyfriend had  admitted on the stand that he knew it was wrong to submit false documents to the government and there was evidence that he signed under penalty of perjury a statement attesting that the documents are true and accurate and the government and its priests in opposition argued entire case and that overwhelming evidence about the defendant's lie in this case this this and the evidence and the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational tire a fact could have found that defend and willfully lied to the f b i and that it was a crime to do so and there are several pieces of evidence that support the sufficiency here st you can look at the defendants bill one million already with law enforcement in this case two weeks before the assault the police had stopped her for an unrelated event he gave them a false name and date of birth her social security number the morning then the morning of the assault when the tribal officer responded to the scene again the a false name and date of birth and interestingly is that she is twenty nine years old but to give a da and officer todd even tried officer testified during trial that it was important to know her native americans back status because he did not have jurisdiction over non native and this coupled with in addition to this continuing to lie at trial even after she had been sworn under oath and she was facing charges or making a false eight inches all this evidence goes to prove that he was willing to i think that what happened is the defendant conflating character evidence with the prior act evidence when she got into this trial and so because of that one opened the door and she complained it is by government is allowed to go in surprise i ask that they're able to come back on the bottle with prior acts we asked that we could have surrebuttal and the courts said if when that time comes will wait and see what happens and when that time comes proper showing of intent neither of these actions show that there was no physical altercation with the stepmother and the sister it was at best unclear who started it it certainly does not show that she was the initial aggressor i also want to point out that's not a point for for consideration however i will note that her lies were explained by her fear of retaliation her lies about who did it that somebody else did it trying to make it seem like someone else had had done it she you do agree with that and it's not why well i think her or her self defense case was strong i do agree that this propensity evidence was of stream really damaging because it's so persuasive but she had a strong case to give a consistent her life whether she's a violent person or not or has you know hit people in the past or not she has a right to defend herself if she reasonably fears a serious injury or death and so if it doesn't i don't do it and that