reasons first in this in this trial the prosecutor was allowed to engage in an improper line of cross examination regarding a related misdemeanor and second during closing argument  and i would like to begin by trying to operate a certain perspective to the issue typically for my office which is myself and john rhodes we are of course involved with most of our cases from the very beginning and so when it comes time to appeal at that time desk then i and i tend to be knowledgeable about the potential issues on appeal and in fact that helps to identify them and preserve them in this case though we did not hear the case so after the trial and so when i although i knew of what general issues might might take place or might be involved it was a call transcript to me and when i get cases like that those rare cases i really try to take  extra time and careful attention to think about what the jury is experiencing as the trial unfolds because sometimes there are issues that weren't for or or issues that i'm that are new to me just because it's not my case and so i want to be especially careful to understand what the jury might be thinking as the evidence comes forth and so in this case early on in the excerpts will cede pages fifteen through seven there's an in chambers discussion of whether there's a for a for issue and there are and or not ruled on so i go further of the transcript and i've got a for a fourth lag in the back of my head that's essentially going to play out but when it does play out it actually is something much larger and more problematic in ass because the government was not simply allowed to stab was this there was a prior conviction for what my office believes is not relevant in this demeanor conviction but the government was allowed to difficulties that have already come out in the evidence such as they relate to the guidelines that aren't written that are promulgated that have been shared with mr vireo regarding renting vs outfitting juror at that point and it might never leave their mind no matter what happens during the rest of the they understand this is a rental situation and so again it's just mr byers credibility is squarely at issue with respect to what could be some of the most damaging testimony and it's his version or it's what outfitting distinction is now we know that if you're going to rescue him then give him everything before they get on or service land let them take it up there let them bring it back down and give it back to you and charge to when the season came on and there were fires and he didn't know if he was going to be able to have his livelihood he asked can i run instead of just guide and outfit and they said yes and they told him some of what he could and couldn't do and it was his understanding that right out there with him they come up and it's the whole show bangs and so if he if he believed he was following this unwritten cans of policy then it's not possible he was actually willfully intending to tell a lie and that's what the issue is here he might have been wrong i mean he might have been mistaken in this turns out he was that he wasn't following the guidelines to achieve it that's not the issue the issue is whether he willfully misrepresented whether he was out getting a guide and if you believe that he was a government government probably could have brought in the conviction would be a different issue and less problematic if the government had simply established that there was this conviction then we'd be dealing with is a misdemeanor conviction for ly that is the difference but the prosecutor uses cross examination in closing arguments to basically inform the jury or educate the jury this educate the jury that the court will eventually this sermon whether or not these cooperated witnesses are credible or not and that's kind of the prosecutor's in the court's job to do that and so the judge the jury doesn't really need to worry about that enforcement can has and will monitor the witnesses truthfulness whether the witnesses have testified truthfully of course is entirely for the jury to determine is improper to communicate that a credibility determination has been made by the u stand and presented us version of the events then the discussion about this other conviction came up in the matter of two questions and the problem beginning problem with the forum for the argument is that in the prosecution's closing argument and there was no objection made at the time and then during the defense's closing argument he didn't even try to rebut those didn't comment on them didn't touch them in any fashion it was only later that he filed a motion reversed its position from in chambers that the conviction was not who was the person he said it wasn't prejudicial in chambers and then eventually as it's coming out he realizes this is prejudicial and so he stops the line of inquiry for  that point your honor there had been no question about whether a judge had whether the magistrate judge had just believed mr buyer that after two questions later then one question made on the two questions later was there an objection well the question after that there was the relevance well i do think that he should have but i think at this point the government has not argued if this is a plan or issue and that's their responsibility to do that and they've read this was that as if it's if you should discretion and they've also conceded that there is prejudice because they have