legal would also put better be filleted to what we're asking the court but i think some of the question was that a jury was in panel in the actual chemist in this particular matter was an able to testify or chose not to testify a key factor in this particular matter was the failure of this particular chemist testified and the state's failure to number one explain why this particular chemist did not testify number two more important than that they brought in the chemist michele neal miss neal to testify in the place of the original chemists and would cases that have been cited by the government the state in this particular matter with all due respect i think there are certain factors which must be pointed out in this particular hearsay is something ordinarily relied upon by experts in their field for example doctors can look at a chart the area to make inquiry as to whether or not based on reasonable scientific certainty it was more likely than not when the chemist in this particular matter testified from the notes of a prior chemist who was being introduced not for reviewed the report and the tests that were wrong and based on that information she expressed an opinion if that's not what she did tell me the evidence that's objectionable well check up i think the important thing is that subject notion that was a lie testimony but the question still remains that if somebody says something is something there has to be proof it's often been said then when something should be examined by a chemist in a particular matter but did she express her own opinion the opinion as usually is provided in the context of the wilson peacock exception which is you know i have expertise i reviewed the notes i now have a conclusion instead was i have expertise i have reviewed the notes i am relying on who's differently or maybe it's a diagnosis based on symptoms and the doctor says i've reviewed the chart and i think that based my result agree medical certainty my opinion is that the doctor did not deviate from standard of care or the doctor did the proper thing for the doctor  e the right surgical technique or whatever was or did didn't need to order that test or whatever they're doing it based upon the records and they did not prepare those records they did they were not in the room when the records were prepared and out observe the patient oftentimes have never seen the on tests done by other people all the time and in my view and my opinion my view whatever however whatever word you want to use they're accurate and this is what it was positive for drugs how is it different than the medical care it's much different judge because one is being  tested are subject to interpretation judge gallagher that one may or may not make the public by biased their coverage colored by prejudiced the gas spec analogy test to something in each interpretation and subsequently either individual  there is a difference between scientific opinion which is relative to question of death how a fire was found or something with a gun as opposed to what actually is substance  and for no reason no suggestion or reason looks at different people's notes and makes a ventured opinion as to what may or may not be there was no reason relative why she or another could not under the circumstances have examined that packet tested it determine what it was and go on from there ok i understand your point i would submit to the court the next point i'd like to move on to respectfully is the point  testimony which would be specific in this matter to trigger a frank's hearing with counsel before we get to that issue we need to address with you know as to whether or not all those documents are in the record are there you judge  be prepared when i was put on notice by counsel that there was a question as to certain documents which may have not received them a pardon question of the record in this particular matter i immediately took the steps to supplement the record so there wouldn't be no reason for before you and say that that's correct because i had not seen that in my preparation i believe that i complied with what was requested and was missing in this particular matter the situation of a judge independent of that and with all due respect to the court i think that before judge judy we made the basis relative to the triggering of the franks motion under chiral there is a split in the particular first district as to which is appropriate or which is correct but it can gentle circumstances alibis have been given in there was enough sufficient relative to the two individuals who we should mid affidavits in this particular matter under strict behalf regarding where he was his whereabouts to at least force the court to do something relative to that particular factor the third viciousness prescreen matter judge your honour's is the change in this in this matter extensively we've talked about that particular chain while imperfect change certainly permissible in certain instances we believe that the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and gave a full explanation as to his lack of culpability his lack of knowledge and any type of information regarding narcotics in or out of stealing activity he took the witness stand in this particular tests and all the other ones that were mentioned so she also reviewed tests in addition to his report exactly so not only did we have his report showing that he conducted these tests and what the results of these tests were she always she was also looking at the his report and when she rendered her opinion she rendered it based on her education training experience and all of the items that we have we have just reviewed pursuant to proffered applies only to hearsay statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted here we do not hear any hearsay statements offered or for that purpose all we have is first of all there was nothing and trade in the evidence your say and we don't have any admitted documents like we did here no one does diaz or even  the turner case was different from the case at bar because they're the experts as the i as an actual peer review were of the nine testifying expert in this case in that case here the situation is quite different then her role as a peer review were not his peer you were she didn't review that particular case when it was generated when it happened when he did all these findings and conclusions but she actually did appear if you were does she looked at his and his nose at all the procedures and protocols and followed determined that he followed them correctly so she really stood in the shoes of what period you were when she testified in court and when she made when she rendered her her expert in at the two federal cases turner removed well normally that's required is how the foundation for purposes of eliciting the opinion now that question is required to be had asked of the witness before you can proceed down the road of having the witness corrected and  you it is very clear that this case is from the beginning outside of the scope of friends which apply it applies only to governmental misconduct and next the defendant does not make a nation that the search warrants establish probable cause the application establish probable cause search warrant affidavits are in what he said and the defendant has not been able to meet their factual burden in the state of the john doe stated that he bought drugs from the defendant in the morning and such and such a date i believe i lunch i showed him around the health club incident and the alibi however that alibi only covered one here hour of a twelve hour period it was from eleven thirty it's middle of the relevant time period so the fi general denials or not enough stated that we should follow carol because an alibi was given in both carol and in this case and our position is first of all the alibi had giant gaping holes keeping casm and in every single case in this in this district and in the state other than other than kero including frames from the us supreme court the keystone to whether there is  a a franks issue is whether there was police misconduct and the key word is police so we're talking about governmental interference this is not a case where the police officer was that would be our fault their argument before we even get to the issue i would like to address your honor's concern about whether there was governmental misconduct or whether that's even necessary to invoke race and frankly is very who had really no ties to the police other than providing information to the police giving his factual rendition of what happened and how he bought drugs from the defendant and a particular day at a particular  to the entire fourth amendment deals with protecting individuals from governmental interference and here we don't have that so to that extent we would before testing and that the certain cannabis and certain cocaine was contained in blue powder whether or not there was blue power is not material that's simply an added observation that dr kreskin made that was not critical to what the items if you tested actually were he didn't test the blue powder he tested he tested the cocaine in the cabin cannabis which were consistent with what the necessary to the circumstances the fact that somebody reach somebody else's notes the fact that somebody says something is ok because i read it and i'm reading my opinion based on what i believe somebody else may had just doesn't cut it our differently the computerization is a different standard the graphs the standards the color counts the weights the quantities the colors are all subject to being interpreted by individuals nobody