witness a witness that came with a great deal of baggage he created problems for the government with respect or credibility in an effort to try to remedy this problem the government from the very outset presented evidence rebuttal evidence with respect to attacks made upon the credibility of the defense witnesses through opinion evidence introduced by the government through an f b i agent relating to the victim's demeanor and by failure to allow other evidence such as the victim's prior burglary conviction the government as i understand it can scenes that the district court committed error in allowing from the very outset evidence arguing that the error committed by the district court in the air committed by itself by the government in introducing this evidence was nevertheless harmless and essentially what the government attempts to argue is that make that link because if you go from the fact that they placed the sister on the witness stand first to testify to the hearsay that then served to bolster their second witness who was of course the alleged victim then they placed the police officer on the witness stand  centrally attempted robbery her testimony through her sister so while the victim could nevertheless testify and that evidence certainly would have come in the victim certainly could have testified about what she believed seem think they both said the same thing but i'm looking at it from the defense point of view and it was tainted and that from the very outset the government was allowed to present evidence kind of more or to the cole attack case what happened was the government was allowed through not only the sister but also through officer peace and to put on evidence in violation of the hearsay rules that tended to not only place this victim's story in front of the jury on one occasion but at least three different occasions but also to improperly bolster her testimony the evidence that was testified to by her sister shouldn't have come in and in any event it was made worse by the fact that the sister was placed on the witness stand as the very first witness you' wrong either when insisting the amount of prejudice we have to look at the tactical or strategic placement of the of the different witness that made it worse is there any in the record in your view any charge or recent fabrication that would have allowed the sisters testimony to come in later for another reason you know i don't believe so given the theory of the defense the defense which was i think on spelled out fairly clearly even in the opening statement our theory was this that this young girl had consensual sex with victor four star she was ashamed about it because of the family that she came from her family being a very religious family t disapproved of her lifestyle and so what she did as she when she got home and she had and she was waiting for her family to get home has she in essence contacted this story that of the way that the judge ruled the judge ruled and he said when we made the initial hearsay objection the course said no in opening statement from the outset you have indicated that you intend to attack this victim's credibility it's coming in under eight zero one d when b i don't see how we need further objection to the officers testimony would have would have been ruled upon any differently and you have false wonder stand the some of the procedural aspects of the case remember that the government had presented a trial memorandum discussing this issue indicating that it made it it made two attempts to introduce the seven senate even cited the tom case the cole attack case which i which were directly on point with the hearsay objections many and so when the court made that ruling they know you've you from the outset even in your opening statement intended to attack this witness is credibility therefore i'm letting it in through the sr i don't know that there could have been any further objection with respect to the officer that would have been ruled upon differently  improperly that there was a church of recent family physician necessarily and everything you have everything else was going to come and that's true and what perspective the doctor i think some of the evidence at least could it come in any way under the medical exception but it was certainly without service from the police officer i think that that had in essence already been rule objective medical evidence to demonstrate one way or the other such as you know damage to the victim why isn't that harmful error or non harmless error to have that sort of gershon there i think the principal reason and there are several but i think the most significant one has to do with what mr nast touched on with respect to the doctor's testimony i think that that was admissible under the medical diagnosis  statements exception that i think there's a huge difference between having three witnesses bolstering credibility and having one witness credibility is a lot l woman he wasn't of any relationship to or there was obviously this close relationship between the victim and her sister and and in fact i think that the defense throughout the course of the trial made that very clear  and they attacked the sister fairly substantially on cross examination i was trying to suggest that at the very least that she was biased and that perhaps she was even line that she may have changed some statements between the gave statements to the police and the time that she testified a saw not respect i think if you weigh the doctor's testimony against hers and he's a disinterested person against an interested person and i third certainly think that that's hands to diminish  is in one sense it isn't i will say that it is is not less substantial to the extent that the doctor said she told him that she was punched that she was choked and that she right to the extent that the sister's testimony is it's more dramatic i think it has to do with her description of the victim when she returned home and not necessarily anything that she said but what she observed about her sister and the fact that she was in there's this very excited state that she was crying that she was tearful and and of course you know those are observations those are statement well in this particular case though the sister did give some background on the victim and and talked about her her demeanor her level of maturity how well and she knew her and she she was saying that in this say that the complaining witness told her that she had been reading that's correct and and then judge just to return to your question i might also like to address the issue that about the police officers testimony about these same statement what's interesting there is the defense also presented testimony through another officer officer told us which contradicted the statements to officer gaston and and so the you know i think that that act of consensual sex any other government never nevertheless bore the burden of proving the sex that occurred and we did present d n a evidence that showed that semen found and in this victim was in fact mr for star s there also was the fact that she had a swollen face now that is a contested issue mr forster presented evidence which contradicted that or at least contradicted the cause of that but there is that that that he would have allowed her perhaps to remove this and so i think there is substantial physical evidence the other thing that is significant here and i think this goes to some of the other specified error  by the defendant as well is the fact that i think any review of the trial record in this matter shows that there was a very substantial almost on fetter ability to question the they've put on evidence that there may have been some previous relationship between her and four star and so you know this is not a case in which they were programmed at three presented to fast and while there was there but he corroborated these injuries rape cases are always difficult this jury also had an opportunity to view the victim and to assess her testimony and ultimately i think it was more than just a swearing match victim returned home this rape occurred early in the morning you know crafts two to three o'clock in the morning she doesn't get home until possibly noon the next day so the first police officer this officer observations of her demeanor and her bodily condition yes she did she testified i believe that she she seemed a little ashamed or her words to that fact maybe a little bit withdrawn associate she may testify she  case it was a swearing contest and the government's chief witness feel ledge victim in this case came with a number of problems she had an alcohol problem she had mental health problems shared there was there was evidence that she had never brought forward prior to this trial that she had been with the defendant on a prior occasion and in fact she had made statements that she didn't know when going to the extent that she didn't know what she didn't like you didn't tell anybody that actually spent the night with him on a prior occasion she had a brother who testified that she was in quotes a liar there were the facts involved here facts that she was at his house they had sex that was supposedly a violent rape they call asleep they woke up at sex again woke up had breakfast he brought her home and depending upon which restatements you believe she asked him to drop her off at a place away from her house so that her parents wouldn't steer come home as far as the physical evidence and whether or not that  enough to bring this case out of to save the government under a harmless error analysis when there's a few things the court needs to keep in mind one scratch on her arm the doctor testified he didn't know if that was older if it was new had testified that time he had punched her hard in the face the doctor testified that there was some redness but no real bruising or anything that you would expect to see from a punch in the face and her brother testified that her face was always re sister she had spoken to her mother she had spoken to officer told as and she had spoken to hofstra beeston and so by the time she got there to speak to the doctor she had spoken to at least four about  she again depending upon which were statements you believe she either got home at about eight o'clock in the morning or she had gotten home at around noon but any rate testimony was she spoke her sister her sister called the police officer told us came over she spoke