investigate that pending we county case before trial so counsel here only been assigned to represent mr moore for about two weeks before the trial commenced he said that the state had informed him of this in the county case and however it was due to a mistake of law at that counsel believed that he could now bring up that pending case to impeach swartz on additionally he apparently did not realize that he should be investigating s job i wish there was a job that i could work forty hours and he keeps going on in the town the stuff that he talks about there that he will use and this is the end you know sir and it's like what i do if i can have people yes your honor that purportedly honorable noted is what we need this impeachment and that is so crucial and why it should have been in front of the jury that was an attempt to mislead the jerry byrd guarding his motives for participating in these transactions as well as the the vulnerability that she experienced either real or imagine as a result of being on probation throughout the period of time where this drug by was taking place where this trial  taking place so he did say he wasn't fighting any case so he wasn't testifying to get a good deal with the basically the theory of the statement he was already on probation it wasn't he wasn't going to get any worse or any better by testifying not as people vs fully demonstrates this this issue of being on an active probation can create a potential bias to testify on behalf of the state to cooperate with the state and cooperate with authorities because there is either real or imagined fear that perhaps a probation to get revoked or that you know there could be some adverse the fact and also  courtroom on the delivery is consistent between the two correct for the most part yes there are some differences as to who was handling the money who was handling the drugs but they are they both agreed that mr moore was involved in potentially biased or that his testimony was affected by self interest only under those circumstances should the jury look at his testimony with greater care so the fact that there was no showing that he was being motivated by th and even if it cases pending during that period of time we have a significant number of them are transactions that he has been relied upon and then to have gone forward so understanding that this was his first time testifying trial he had not previously testified on behalf of the state in any of those other kids that it's so it's also i think relevant to look when you look at the docket sheet this probation was only supposed to be twenty four months and it was still going on long after that term because there were numerous payor appear order centered so he was having trouble paying off the balance in that case and i think that that makes it even more relevant that she has the unit this increased financial incentive to cooperate with this with the state keep working as an informant and be useful to the state in getting additional convictions to protect his probation as well as his position advantage in form but he still has to pay i mean they weren't reducing his payments at the fact of his probationary status is what's relevant so it doesn't matter where he's on probation and these are needling counties and it's you know it's not reasonable to infer that there was knowledge or cooperation between those two states attorney's offices however what's relevant is that he may he may have been vulnerable to pressure real war and magic and the jury was not presented with that information well they certainly were presented with instructions to testify falsely so very sick people would have believed that as an informant his motive was one to keep the community is the work of the jury very well made believe that based on his testimony however had he been impeached hey aren't you on probation don't you have reason to curry favor with the state to protect your own self interest in that chase and addition to that you sat here and told the jury you're not in trouble you're not fighting off any cases well don't you have a pending case right now you're not  drugs so it had been disclosed the nine i p r instruction clearly the form injury they were to you both witnesses with great caution in and differently than all the witnesses what about the fact he defense counsel whether he was in the case for two weeks or two months or two years should have looked into this witness a little more more carefully and ultimately was able an officer you have actually a couple officers you have the people you have the prosecutor all saying we weren't aware of it i mean you're not dealing with the bronx you're with the prosecution of the agents who are dealing with realistic for some months ago at least seventy different people i have no idea of the credibility of this particular causing the cousin gives an affidavit saying oh yeah it was well known well apparently wasn't well known to the police personnel you're not dealing with in drug cases especially in small growth cases unfortunately you're never going to be well i guess fortunately you're never to be dealing with boy scouts for a lot of this you are dealing with because the war doesn't have the resources to evidence was that prior to trial neither the people nor defense counsel any reason to believe that it was anything more than remote that was involved in certainly trying to start a grand eyes and at will we can and he's helping the community helping the police but there was no reason to believe that he was necessarily a drug dealer and self the only condition he had was the sale of prescription drugs so until you learn after the fact again hindsight is twenty twentieth's you till after the fact that they were and that he died of a drug overdose specifically heroin at that time was the first time counsel but it's really put on notice and said  drugs are harmful to society you get money for it you tend to commit burglaries and other crimes to do it which to be honest the president set himself to have to do anything so this court mccain said that's ok we are understand that a judge is going to come in on a judge cannot necessarily separate his conscience the question is we need to look at what impact we think it had sentence if anything strange enough we would argue that it was almost a big benefit to defendant because the fact that i understand that the people who are going it was in response to thirteen he had been abusing drugs for years the judge said fine there are problems and the community is dangerous and heroin is cheaper than ever and it's bad and he did receive compensation however the judge then turned around and mitigation i'm finding the fact that you were a long time drug abuser and that you will do anything i find that you acted under strong provocation and there is a reason why you did this you did this to feed your drug habit i do think that probably you should have taken advantage of some of these prior examples and you realize i can't believe that you've never been given the benefit before you probably have been but regardless i'm willing to give you that benefit i'm going to clearly more significant where they found that council was clearly not ok did not exercise good judgment but that there was no prejudice to the strength of the state's  possibility that the judge not self serving they are to serve the community and it's obvious why he did that and that's part of the original the background of this that's why he got involved in this case according to his testimony because of you know this person that  crusading for the health of the community yes the way he posed to the jury this was a necessary evil to ensure that children could be saved from the one point two grams of heroin being delivered to an informant so why couldn't they assume that he was lying about everything he said in order to get mr moore off the street the again the honorable loadings angle i think undermines the value of that impeachment out that he'd sort of grudgingly agree that he does lie but only to drug dealers