our final case for today is so church against richardson to demonstrate that materiality social must demonstrate only that there is a reasonable probability of different outcome in the trial i think i should think a certain goal for so shit in my mind is that the swanson difference to the verdict and of course osha had a bench trial so this was the very judge who found him guilty in the first place how can we a transcript would undermine confidence in the result of the trial when the trial judge himself found the result would have been  are two points first the trial judge in this case was three years removed from the original trial when he was considering the evidence that issue the trial in this case was in the summer of two thousand and two hearings on the post conviction motions in which th if this were court were to find without it was important it would basically mean that there would be no brady violations and bench trials at least not in the state of wisconsin because in the state of wisconsin your original trial judge will always he the brady violation after having conducted his own bench trial and so that would mean that there were just never be able to meet the materiality standard if the judge himself simply side that would not change my mind so for those reasons i don't think it's turn it around a little bit again here we are again on ed to hold who is the person who is affected by this swanson interview with was one of your less savory people right he had pleaded guilty to this murder his character for truthfulness isn't so great and the state courts just don't think that this additional evidence is enough to move the needle basically and you might have thought it was something but i actually took a look at all the rest of the evidence tending to show that mr socha was deeply involved in this murder and there seems to be quite a bit even independent of home and home himself is deeply impeach so why couldn't the state court at least not unreasonably have thought that this was cumulative enough that it did not shake its confidence in the verdict there at least at the court of appeals level there since you have exhibit submitted as exhibit fourteen in the post conviction motions there was no no within the transcript of the interview but the court of appeal seems to have referred only to no it's there was evidence that those notes were in fact not taken during the interview with mr swanson because captain danny who took the notes testified that the content of the notes let him to believe that the notes were actually taken during mr socialist trial and not during the swanson interview so i that the court the court of appeals may have been considering the wrong evidence when it determines that there was no brady violation but returning to your honest question that there was plenty of evidence regarding mr holmes it's important to note that mr home was the only after only witness that placed a motive for mr so sure to join this conspiracy are you sure about that i mean looking we have  to the checks and the drugs and all sorts of things i think that's an overstatement well mr asic testified only to one conversation that she overheard she said she came into the room during the conversation she wasn't quite sure what they were of leonard right and mr drew's though testifies that the sole reason for the murder was these this check cashing or everybody talk about the about the checks and he later also testified that he had no idea why mr social would want to be murdered and to be it's very important that the trial court physically saddened rendering his verdict that he was very un christian he did that any of these people would want to murder lance leonard based solely on his knowledge of their involvement in the check cashing scheme what that fast was a serious issue for home because of all of the prior convictions he felt that he was going to return to prison for a very long time and so that's really one of the key issues with the swanson statement was because  home directly told swann saying i had to murder lance leonard because i didn't want to go to jail for a long time and it's that fast plus the forgery that was going to increase the penalty for home well that's just gets to the point that's already been social culpability and that's essentially what was persuasive to the wisconsin court of appeals in this case and the wisconsin court of appeals does he realize what you're talking about was the notes of a obviously culpable here and more culpable than he admitted on the stand but swanson took that the evidence from swanson would have taken that a step further and completely undermined his credibility home with the only one who testified that any motive for the murder was so she's drug dealing the state in fact conceded during their closing argument that truth and razak knew nothing about the drug dealing and nothing about that aspect of the motive for the murder and yet the trial court placed that as the entire reason why he found home to be credible and found that social must have participated in this crime because of the drug dealing now if the court had heard that mr holm made up a threat by so sure that that threat wasn't true because swanson said that it wasn't true and that if you'd heard that holmes had in fact a greater motive for the murder than not just that property crime but in fact he was afraid of going to prison for the fact as well i think that there that really would have undermined his testimony and would especially highlight pages forty six to forty eight sixty one through sixty four and seventy eight through eighty i would suggest after reading this that might agree with me that very few defense attorneys would touch began to unravel although socha told home that he only used a b b gun and not a real gun when he held it to holmes head and then the at the end of that interview where he talks about that the short time he was a cellmate with soc himself now are some parts of an interview could be favorable in other parts unfavorable right that's correct but of so great i didn't say it's got to be one hundred percent no but the weather the times would bring out the favorable parts and then the prosecut probability that a different outcome had this been disclosed the defense before trial and i would say it would not largely because defense probably wouldn't use it would be afraid address that would be afraid to call mr swanson himself for fear of what he would say but also there is no reasonable probability when one looks at i would invite the court to review the decision of judge makers and which judge grosvenor astutely pointed out was also the judge who reviewed the brady issue and was able to assess the impact of this wants swanson f and it transcript in light of the evidence that he thoroughly considered and that's in the appendix also the petitioners appendix the pages eleven thirty three where the judge went into great detail about the motives of the actions of each one and then all of these nefarious characters and all of whom had credibility issues and that decision would not change and in fact did not change and i think i would also refer to mr such as own statements to police after his arrest where he admitted drug dealing he admitted participation in the fraudulent text to check scheme he also admitted drug dealing t whole victor home specifically which is important because his judgment for sin and the his virtual t verdict and his fact finding in support of his guilty verdict pointed out that these people were not only concerned about check cashing concern about losing their drug supplier who had control over them and felt the need to protect him and that was important so there's a lot going on here and there swanson you know also finally mr home and in a second statement police said you know death harassment knows a lot more about this and she's willing to let on and why am i charging jim why am i being charged with intentional murder yeah maybe i was a party to the crime but i didn't commit the murder betraying a misunderstanding wisconsin's party to a crime law he failed to grasp that just because he wasn't there when the boat was put into mr leonard's had and he was shoved into the shallow grave doesn't mean he's not as guilty as the two people who did it and he so he basically admitted being a coconspirator thinking that net net might be that might result in some mitigation which of course is not true under wisconsin la crumbles and so that's important swanson demonstrates that mr home is lying he is concocting threats he's trying to get himself out of jail and so it could be that everything that he's telling this response in is also a lie we just don't know and  that evidence should have been available to mr so sure to use that trial to undermine his credibility and show that he was lying thank you all right thank you and you accepted disappointments well did you not yes we thank you very much for your efforts thanks as well to the state the court w