attorney and this is not the proceed in for me to monday quite about their kind of of their trial attorney however i submit to this court that the framers of the united states constitution did not see and expect that the government or the court would ignore the qs rate to a theatre in this case the government and the judicial branch adopted the us troops teary and buried their heads in the sand therefore the government and the judge ignored the fundamental rights of the queues because of different reasons such as finance and bring in a witness you know  submit to you that when you look at the first issue as it relates to whether the evidence was material or the tape and favorable the government theory for persons involved in the murder you want to i listen to you and i submit to you that the judge is the gatekeeper and as the gatekeeper th be sure that the trial is fit i submit to you and i sincerely believe us to be the on the record paniagua to the virgin islands but and i'm i must say that when i first read the briefs in this case i was a bit troubled by that but then as i thought the matter through i kept returning to this whole question of exactly what it was that pony agua would say and the requirement would be that his testimony  would would need to be material and through verbal and think can't be that it's not ultimately going to come in so how would there be any prejudice here at all even if we were to say well it would have been the better practice for the all the district or the judge should have directed that the witness come down when the witness ultimately would not have testified to anything that was materially favorable to the first and i'd like to address on a more of this one to your question however i can obtain the identity with the c i was an active participant in the crime in the defendant generally can attain their identity and finally situations between the two a kind of case by case basis what  have here would seem to me that the c i was c i was not an active participant would you agree with that not in the motor right no but i submit to you without the records should indicate that the was raised at the appellate division alone we took a look at the brief there and and were unable to see any mention in the brief about this c such information at this time yana however that's the reason why i started out by saying that this is not the monday morning what i think i understand it was concerned that there there was a general i did not i do not read it that there was one hit man that shot that shot of the man dressed in black and i said well that i did it as a possibility and that is why can't you needed to defense counsel that it's it's the jury's decision to decide whether to admit he will say evidence and it's the judge's decision to decide whether a witness tells the truth you are is a bit backwards on both co believe that point in time ok but it's not just i know so i'm not prepared to argue this and then you tell me i'm not that's not we're here for i'm trying to get to the meat of basically it does not get you you have to then issue on several layers i i had asked about the nature of the confidential informant what type of c i was  nature of the c i is maybe also believe some importance to our analysis in this case but in just in terms of the importance to the defense am i correct that it would have been important to the defense because the c i was the only person he only other person who could have identified the speaker on the tape and could have said the speaker was plan attorney piggyback too much on the most be attorney and he did not girl forward and the relevant questions put in to their cia and i think that the court in every and the people had a duty to disclose and we had our present duty to get that information and basically i submit that court points out and it's very clear on the record that there was no objection to mr copus testimony at any point with regard to mr cokers testimony there was sufficient corroboration through a number of witnesses  as to his observations as to what mr richardson said to him and the fact that mr richardson asked him to hold a sawed off shotgun that had black tape on it and that he was  in addition to that he had mr selwood observed a similar looking weapon in new york's latest fashion on the very afternoon to officer hodges murder in addition  testimony that mr richardson did confess to the crimes with regard to his participation in the murder case so with regard to trial level and the appellate level that there was absolutely sufficient corroboration by independent evidence both through witnesses and forensic evidence that supported the theory behind the mr kolker is not the issues there so there's some real question as to whether some of the issues that the defense counsel attempts to argue were actually properly raised before this court and i think we we need to address those issues what we have us we have another issue that my rises if you have an issue raised in the presence of the other party in counsel specifically raised by the ok so so that richardson did not need a defendant there's some real questions if not follow through in what was there and that's what ya know there's some question as to who was being represented by what particular issues during the trial and i say that because there is a number of points within the trial transcript that miss the most these defense counsel specifically says i am speaking on behalf of my client only and that isn't with regard to mr pelly i was issues in t regard to the confidential informant and again on that i was not at the trial level so i'm not trying to monday morning quarterback as was suggested by defense counsel however the defense counsel at the trial level never made any objections and never really participated in any of those conversations it was very clear throughout the trial that it was most peace counsel who was pushing and pushing and pushing for not only mr penny i was testimony to be alive before the jury but also for the tate so those issues i would submit to the court it's real questionable as  he was stood twice cross examination from mr richardson's counsel so to say now that one of the testimony was improper or to also say at this point that there wasn't sufficient proof i think is a misstatement of the facts in the record that's raised a number of issues in the previous argument that maybe address it properly raised in this particular situation so at this point your honour's if there are any other issues the connections of his participation in the conspiracy clearly he had a weapon clearly in addition to that there was a representation by all defense counsel that none of the sufficiently to be admitted and on cross examination he was these things and this is covered quite eloquently in my opinion in the brief and that's the reason why i was it is convenient no two really is the question whether the objection made what joint objection and it's sad i look for it to see if i can argue to the jury that when moore's b attorney makes an thank you so i will take this minor under advisement we thank counsel for their helpful arguments