proceed thank you for this conviction must be reversed because at trial this ramirez cracky was convicted not on the charges against her but the focus at trial was shifted by the government to extraordinarily prejudicial acts that occurred approximately five years before the current offense these extraordinarily prejudicial last had no relevance to the issue at trial the issue at trial and the basis of the defense was knowledge specifically knowledge of the marijuana that was secreted in the back seat of a vehicle that was not miss ramirez crocky vehicle with the court's permission i would like to begin with the four four b argument specifically three separate sections the first being relevant the second being the four factors of four for b and the third being a four zero three analysis beginning with relevan case well there's two points that i'd like to make in response to a question the first is that many times that for full the evidence of prior acts was brought in in response to a particular defense that's not the case here this for for be evidence was brought in the government's case in chief before the defense was even presented to the jury the witness who presented the four for be evidence in this crime he being the subject of an undercover sting operation by the four to controlled substances sales and in addition to that that she had one pound of marijuana in a pillow case in her purse was presented to the jury before any defense was put on i believe that this court has before sent back cases such as garcia rosko and hernandez miranda where and those two cases your honor in garcia rosko the trial court held that the four for be evidence was not admissible in the case in chief it came in and that conviction was overturned in hernandez miranda i believe also that this court decided that there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court in truth allowing the introduction of the fourth fo sequentially beginning with i think that in many of those cases also and i would like to cite the merriment in the court of appeals specifically found that the trial court conducted and i quote from the opinion a considered i'm still disputing the relevance ok because i believe that undermines in order to stablish relevance to a person i said evidence will have policies must be articulated before the court and i believe to answer your honest question that many of the prior cases there was a considered rosko the prior occurred three years before the offense that was charged i think that there was actual more more similarity and there was a precise evidence of a hypothesis that wasn't really that was ruled not relevant in investigation in which she participated in the sale of two can two times of controlled substances and also that she had one pound of marijuana in her purse at a casino in elko home california the similarity that that has to similarity is still required for intent as knowledge and that similarity was i would first admit that similarity was not present here and i would also argue that the government if it were to prove intent had the facts of the case to prove that have the charges against mr maritz crocky allowing them to introduce this highly extraordinarily prejudicial evidence before the jury in their face witness who was the witness right before mr ramirez crocky testified and i think that's another parallel that orosco it was not held to be harmless error it was harmful error because the testimony of the defendant was crucial to the defense here in judge the need as allowing in this for for be evidence right before the last witness before ms ramirez crocky was giving a plausible explanation and giving a defense it was highly prejudicial it did not meet the requirements of four four b and it was not relevant to the issues at  macy's court good morning your honors my name is stephen so cars representing the united states of america and the feel it's important for the court to know right off the bat that this case that was tried in district court was tried with a fair trial the defendant was explanation can certainly have been influenced by his perception of whether or not she was a person with her friends having to engage in the similar prank or nonetheless that propensity bull for for the evidence was introduced for very narrow purpose and a purpose allowed by rule for forty that purpose is to show the not only the knowledge that mr ramirez had in this case but the intent that she had what she wanted to in possession of drugs for sale and that's what the four for the evidence showed that that person is more likely to have knowledge of drugs when they're engaged in a similar type of act in this case she was engaged in the same type of that  marijuana there so it isn't that she had previously said i don't know something i don't i that was in marijuana that's not true so how does that in any respect demonstrate that she knew there was marijuana in the facts other than because she has a disposition purposes for introduction of this evidence and in this case what the defense was she not only didn't have knowledge but of course that this was essentially an accident that she got into this car and started driving it for mr garcia the passenger it possessed approximately two pounds of marijuana on both occasions she was intending to sell the marijuana and this evidence went directly to an element of the government's case in chief and the possession for intention distribute charge the government was knowledge the evidence still should have come in for the other purposes under four for b which are non disposition purposes so the government's admits that the evidence was still validly admitted under any of these theories under when there will be let's say that she desk before one hundred pounds of marijuana but it hadn't been shown that she was going to sell it although one could argue course by volume think he she had transported it for somebody that was clear she with him going to sell it wouldn't come in i believe the analysis would be slightly different the government will knowledge that because the what we're looking for i think in the for when the analysis is as much similarity of course as we can find and in this case we have a lot of similarity we just the second issue the question is what is asked so how is it similar to say that somebody who's carrying something knowingly and have terms and is similar to somebody ho while the government would concede if the court makes a determination first that the evidence should not have come in for knowledge then perhaps before for being structured himself not of mention the word knowledge however i wouldn't concede that that meant the jury was mistrusted necessarily because the jury was given proper purposes to consider the four for be evidence which was the other purposes of intent and a lack of mistake or accident in this case so that really boils down to this is to do it once and you do anything a different analysis but it's somewhere in the vein that there's an attack involved in both instances of course but i think what what's happened here in the courts case law and we believe the case was developed correctly and interpretation of rule for four b is a recognition that  ve purpose was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice so in sum your honors i would submit that to the evidence in this case shows very clearly that miss miss remarriages who had gave this confession to knowledge of the marijuana and then came to trial and changed her story and said she actually did not know about the marijuana and tried to blame her passenger who i point out she had exonerated in her post miranda confession initially so she changed her story hundred eighty degrees and put the government in the position of having to show why her story a trial was incorrect and why her story when she had first been arrested was correct and all of this evidence went directly for purposes permissible purposes in this case isn't it so often here i understand your honor and it does create a potential pellet issue of course however respectfully the government believes that any admissible evidence that goes to show her guilt should be present in our case in chief we don't take anything for granted anything that's permitted by the rules of evidence that points to the defendant's guilt and is not overly prejudicial is something that we present for the jury and we believe it's proper for them to consider but see my time's expired thank you very much  explanation on this craft he was exonerating her passenger who was the registered owner of the car who suffered from a child and that was the defense at trial so i think this was harmful air it was harmful because the same reasons of course the orosco where the court found that correct yes your honor i don't think that would be the rule though i think the rule was there wouldn't be a new rule created i think the role of the relevance and i think that and i really want to address this point before my time is up i don't think that we get to intent without knowledge prejudicial extraordinarily prejudicial prior acceptance that was allowed in not in a relevant manner not relevant to the issues of the case i think that it was wet in out of the gate in the government's case in chief and i don't think that arguing that it didn't go to if i could pick up a hypothetical that was posed is that if someone were convicted or had a prior act of a prior homicide and then was on trial for homicide i think that if you let that homicide in the government's case in chief it's extraordinarily prejudicial and  it takes on a different hue than it does if the defense was at trial self defense if it was a self defense presentation in the defense's case in chief well then you have a you have a different standard under four for b but we're talking about the case in chief before mr ramirez cracky took the stand whether she took the stand or not the government was allowed to bring this evidence and i don't think that there is a similarity here i don't think in this crime he had possession of it at trial and the similarity between having a powder marijuana in her purse wrapped in a pillow case and what was in this case which is it was hidden behind a vehicle and the testimony of agent hofmann in the government's case in chief revealed that she had to slice open the back seat and remov