admitted that she had been using drugs before the shooting occurred and because of the weak nature of the government's case does the prosecutor made an effort to sort of paint the whole scene of this case as all about the stockton drug world and murders that happen in the stockton drug world and he overstepped the prosecutor's role several times and abused status to lead the jury to believe that our client mr ariano was involved in the stockton drug world and that he had pressured attorney did not act vigorously in protecting his client from these improper innuendos that the prosecutor made throughout the trial i'd like to start by talking about the prosecutor's closing argument involving testimony by the defendant's wife's grandmother and i'd like to actually read the relevant portions i think it's important words the prosecutor  prosecutor arguing to a jury that you can infer a witness this morning by facts that are in evidence or why they're biased because they're related to someone who's in trouble and actually asserting that a conversation occurred where somebody pressured this witness to lie and he doesn't so you can infer that this happened he says you know what happened this conversation happened i think doing that especially in the context of a closing argument where the witness is already left the stand the defense can't put on any additional evidence to rehabilitate mr starr is this especially prejudicial  the next item i'd like to talk about is the introduction of drug drugs and drug paraphernalia had been impeached by the fact that he had two prior felony convictions and i think that was not proper but we draw a line between that evidence and evidence that harmful i think it was harm because because if it was part of an overall scheme to convince the jury that  mr ariano was a dangerous drug dealer who had pressured people into lying the you know this luna who testified for the government was not an witness and therefore the jury may not have been convinced that he that mr ariano which is currently dealing drugs based on the proper evidence that it but what was really harmful was you know your client saying well i just used to weigh vegetables well you know i have a feeling that he probably wasn't prepared for being confronted with that because i don't think i think that that's another problem is that the general feeling he wasn't prepared but there's no evidence as to whether he was actually prepared and how long for how long it was prepared right there's i think that with with restrictions it's this all started with the weakness of his answer when confronted with the question and there's the allegation really is not that that if you come on the stand without having him deny culpability was in effect assistance of counsel and the prosecutor picked up on the fact that he was never asked if he committed the crime he never denied it and used that in his closing attorney should have made a relevant objection and preserved that issue and more importantly actually kept the evidence away from the jury i thought he did some that he didn't do it timely and the evidence did come before the jury and again our contention is that this plays into  an overall scheme to use character evidence  your honor i i also just want to talk briefly about the closing argument that mr pickett made in which he tells the jury that he agrees his client has something to hide again in the context of the trial that was trial where it's all about credibility it's not worth it to try that kind of tactic i mean they had admitted that yes he used more than one name because he was afraid of deportation and that certainly was understandable but to keep that he's got something to hide during closing argument was prejudicial i know the attorney general's office was also argued that this that ultimately i think when the evidence was presented and when the defendant testified as to about for instance how he'd been making his living during cross the fact that he had a home that he was still running the stock and at the same time he was with  fact he was in san jose all day on may twelfth nine hundred eighty eight when the murder occurred and the grandmother had testified he'd been there all month and he was also in fact renting an apartment in stockton at the same time still making rental payments on that's when the grandmother testified and she claimed that there was evidence that would have indicated that he had been in insanity and may twelfth hadn't bothered to bring along the cooperation whether that would it would have shown that there was just i think a lot of legitimate questions raised about how firm this this alibi was that he was in stockton on may twelfth in the jury the jury heard both sides they made their decision none of the claims that are being raised now really establish that was any fundamental correct that i don't contest that well yes but i think you have when you compare it frankly comparing her testimony what the defense ultimately presented the jury came in the next day after closing arguments in this case and i'm not i'm not too sure it really they really didn't have any compelling or ultimately persuasive support for the defense of mistaken identity or alibi in this case the miss luna identify the defendant the day after the murder she wouldn't have any idea one way or another what alibi he may or may not have she described him accurately she knew him this when the defendant testified he confirmed that he knew the victim he in the victim and had problems there was a motive the two defense witnesses who testified late the other eyewitnesses that the only thing that really questioned was miss loomis description of the events in the immediate aftermath of the crime their description of the events otherwise that they either overheard a witness or actually pretty consistent with the way in this movie described as to how the crime occurred how the gunshots occurred this type of thing defended himself when he did testify it was equal about what his back lawyer i think definitely have the idea that he would have some success he thought in limiting cross examination because he was trying to keep it limited to one day testimony about what was going on at one particular day and  doing so the hope would be that they would not be able to get i suppose in the cross examination of other things that the defendant had been involved in both before and after that day how do you remember i'm not asking him whether he victim that might indicate motive you would open up potentially to questions about where you were involved in drug dealing activities with the victim which could lead to what was going on both before and after that day both of the prosecution was able to accomplish that  the reason for that would have been rhythm i think that at that point he was sticking to his position that he was in san jose all that it was nothing to add to that in fact that asking that question with tension or you could be indicating some concern that you had not adequately made that clear to the jury that you're backing off of that that position off of what you might you might be back you know that you're expressing that right by now going back and and now saying in a different way that you're denying that you were the murder