bad admissions from him and so we again assert with all due respect the district court judge erred in not granting that motion to suppress the most important issue i think in this case here for purposes of why the case should be  is the request for the mistrial and i think that i need to be able to make to the court here because you can see it in the black and white which is of the service to the client but when they brought keri russell and that is what the government call sitting right here but then they bring her in a wheelchair she doesn't sit in the in the witness stand but they bring her in in a wheelchair they have recovered in the with the cover and so then they have aerated course the judge and the government to pay for vision from the judge to question her like almost two feet from her face and so i'm sitting there was very any objections to that person tonight and that is because of the circumstances so i did not object to that way of having to questioning however where the government is questioning of whether dad it was in court for some reason for the government to get into what conversations were between she and my client on the night of the incident and of course the witness that seemed to understand  she could remember but dad the government kept prodding is that well know what were you talking about what were you talking about as he finally did looks out says well he abused me which was completely non responsive and there was a surety of instruction yeah but i think the impact on the jury was evident to me what you have the circumstance of this witness come in in a wheelchair when he nearly killed her i mean it's not it's not as if he had nothing to do with this incident you know mason and what she she appeared i'm not arguing ceased that particular question when she said i cannot remember and go on to the next point what i believe is important here is the fact that it's nasty if they solicited this one thing if they did solicit it well they still have a very prejudicial because he found her to be a vulnerable victim he went on to the fact that she was a battered woman and he was very very impacted by the fact that presumably she had been previously abused by my client has to make any difference the are you trying to tie that some of the alleged trial error or because she could presumably have such evidence of certain saying even if the comment had not been blurted out nearing the trial so i i wasn't the government i think that's that the case of you have told people who are very emotionally impacted by ok that we're not talking about the sentencing that's when i was trying to hire back what does the jury believe if this if  motion for mistrial and i think that the court has hit it squarely on the head this was a woman who was gravely impaired by what happened to her i was asking her trial questions about the discussions they were having that night because we knew from statements she had made to law enforcement what those discussions were and they were important to the issues in the case and she in the middle of that literally just blurted out the statement that she made that he is complaining out we all had limited capabilities in terms of being able to respond to the questions that were being asked she didn't commit any more of those kinds of comments into the record the jury was immediately admonished to disregard was admonished again  the final arguments and in the final instructions to disregard any evidence that had been told by the court to disregard and so the jury is presumed to follow those instructions in this case could you just go back to the motion was there with her permission for them at least a part of part of it until two or two twenty of the morning and that would be on august sixth she's basically laying comatose during the day on august sixth and it is the chance meeting where neil tooth is driving her car in the evening you know fairly long a day before she's actually taken to the hospital in lame deer when her mother says she needs to be taken she gets to the hospital much later in the evening is triology is in critical condition and then is flown to billings attempted to be flown that had to be driven hospital and arranged for somebody else to take care of them but then we go later to the testimony of there's some yellow tape that's placed around them but i couldn't figure out exactly when that occurred and it is it's not security in the best of all fashions but it was secured when people realize well that's where she came out of is that the crime scene or did she get hurt somewhere else and so they do put tape up you have to understand this is an indian reservation this is not that's a very rural area very small town and it's not the same as it might be you know in a larger city so the first appreciating what i think some of that was based on i believe there was a motion in limine that was filed to keep out prior evidence of abuse and so the judge was obviously aware that there had been prior evidence of abuse and we all agreed not to talk about that trial so he was aware of that cha finding for sentencing purposes he also had more information i mean the pre sentence report about the fact that she was a battered woman he also considered the note that the l t had left to her that is contained in the record we've admitted that at prosecuted and then refused to do and i think there are very substantial facts in this record from which the court could make that vulnerable victim finding that she was a victim of both domestic abuse and that she was pregnant and that both parties knew she was pregnant at the time that those two things and her continued psychological dependence on this man an inability to get away from him and to report him when he done things to her made her more vulnerable then it would have made somebody else that he but they focused their investigation on him as detainees lee i mean i think the circumstances surrounding taking the victim to the hospital and so forth i think that by phone to get go he was the target of the investigation and i think that you can't use that person's denial i think that's his right guidelines and advisory and the absolute only sentence that he felt was appropriate was the maximum sentence because having the timing been slightly different of the doctor has been slightly not the the piece that deals with whether the enhancements were properly applied in view of the court's determination to use the statutory max amount what difference would it have made had he said well there aren't any enhancements that apply but and then have given the same speech on the same sentence myself so i guess what difference to those made that's a good question and i think under the circumstances of this case i think th judge judge is intent was to give of what he could statutorily maximum and so i guess all this talk about the guidelines may not be all that important but again i think that we're obligated if we're our final argued case