homicide and he from our point of view performed brilliantly in the case and as a result of his representation another count now i like to say that if mr milstein hadn't carried out the steps that he carried out in interviewing these witnesses whom we were informed had relevant evidence to offer that we might now of course he's interviewing people who are obviously looking for something i think that's  there seems to be no question that in the case of mr gutierrez had he been called by the prosecution during the mill were cases he would have been legally characterized as a jailhouse informant which requires kugel at the highest level in the district attorney's office and it requires corroboration just as penal code eleven eleven requires cooperation something which was never obtained in this case and yet the defendants insist to this day that they  corroboration some mystical corroboration as the part that bothers the appellant and myself so much because i believe it's an indication of that faith having gone through an entire crowd record the court of appeal in california examining the record could not find any corroboration because all of the testimony came from accomplished witnesses and actually only one accomplice witness was hauled off against mr milstein in his and instead of prosecuting the man and the person who's got approaching him personally the individual will be in charge of deciding to arrest him prosecute him or what have you imagine a duty on the part of mr gutierrez when he different from any other case for why because you're talking about prosecuting attorney we're talking about prosecuting attorney based on accomplice testimony and the attorneys are usually vulnerable to this kind of type of situation i mean any number of his clients could make claims if they thought they were going to gain some benefit out of it and that's why i believe it's common modus operandi amongst longed for it that you don't in fact in fact i've previously stated that police detective would never dream of up bringing this case to a district attorney would never dream of getting past posing outis while unless you get one of three or four things one in other words corroborate what this man said one typically they have a wire they send the client into the attorney when you see these cases and he talks to the attorney and you record what you kearney's telling to the to the client or the witness and you listen in on it or secondly you execute a search warrant of his office and perhaps you recover visible evidence to corroborate the statement or thirdly you have a disgruntled former secretary who testifies against the attorney  or you intercept some type of conversations the attorneys having with have been involved in a conversation with mr gutierrez during this weekend interval between july seventh and july fancy because it's our position that mr milstein had a two or three minute period of time to actually evaluate these invoices that we now know were phony and he had two or three minutes to evaluate them before mr gutierrez recook the stand at the request of the prosecution and is very angry at the man because in his opinion i didn't represent him throughout this criminal proceedings with by the way resulted in a total of four years out of fifteen years folger suggesting in my mind at an implication of the prosecution there are if you're talking to somebody that you can you can prosecute for perjury and instead of prosecuting them they get the idea that if they cooperate with you they don't get prosecuted they get immunity again to but what's the difference i think any hesitation in the sense we're talking about here what's the difference between that and approaching any other witness in any conspiracy and trying to flip them and you know we can't here to the rule of law i think you're felony convictions for dishonesty on and then you have to think that you have to consider what he said during the interview itself where he and he admits that he the so called crime report that they're referring to the request for an investigation is an internal document that alexander wrote to the supervisor requiring him to get permission to begin the investigation aware of a crime report filed with of the same story and lead you to believe that somebody but the fort and i think that i think the question here and then the only issue to me is when there's a trial issue of fact on on not whether or not they their statement i mean that's the only question is is that enough  of the evidence but not as to whether defendants should have known that mr gutierrez was such a liar that they could never ever get a jury to believe him because i might understand your point and that's i think innocent and more importantly that the defendants knew he was innocent yet went forward with their investigation there was plenty of evidence here for a reasonable person to believe that mr milstein was involved in perjury whether  a duty to measure the facts in the record by legal standards and decide whether they have probable cause to prosecute the possibility of less than perfect investigative conduct on the part of the police and here the prosecutor is no doubt one reason of our requires an exercise prosecutors informed discretion where the initiation of prosecution here we have someone who is a prosecutor with their being injured but who is being judged by