case in terms of what happened it just doesn't seem right ok well here's the problem i have with that is that let's say that these two charges of improper the same sovereign but there be a double jeopardy problem admission in state court they can be used in federal court they way they want about it getting two separate charges get them out of the elemental analysis test and it's a dangerous slippery slope we have an very strong it's just a stray death of a judge frank for unfortunately we raised it in this circuit but the judge in in judge new ninja thing in here i think put it in private place that you've got to show  mail was in both sides of the camp but we do that all the time now we cross the federal court cross guess again the state and federal prosecutors say prosecuting both sides we've been doing it for twenty five years what's wrong with that and based i believe based on the sequence of events it raises an inference which the only other thing we can look at because there's no other thing we can look at decide what was the decision making process and that's the limit of discovery we asked if it comes up they from his perspective he thought it was over now we don't know when they made the decision making process and again that's why i'm asking for a limited discovery is that what was discussed in terms of offering this plea in state court and it's very easily remedied of if we just have a limited saying that every single case we're going to allow discovery as to what the task forces are doing if there are charges filed in both courts right no your honor only if the sequence of events and i've been a trial attorney in las vegas for twelve years i haven't had this sequence of events in terms of so it  happens in a limited number of cases not understand we don't want a broad rule where anyone can go and ask for all these documents every time because numerous cases are referred from state to federal court in the task force but if you have a sequence of events that's very troubling the way we have what type of showing would you have what sort of an affidavit would you have to have to have the type of hearing you would like so that every time an attorney can say they have weekly meetings about transfer their internal whenever to ensure a hearing and that's a broad stroke i think that's what you're asking for i mean you say it's limited but i don't see the limitation if you don't have to show in fact it was in the or what was discussed at the meeting of all you have to show is the thing we have a policy of having weekly meetings where they discuss this  be surprised to find out that there's any federal state task force any placement ninth circuit that doesn't have meetings i have is how can i show that without the information that's why i'm asking for your position one question what do you think the contours of darkness are and it seems to me people say what it's not but in this in this era of trying to stay federal task force in prosecutions what do you think  prosecuted knowing that there would not be a conviction  court that i think it's angleton and it's a survey and there really have been no cases where there was such a manipulation and i think that's an interesting case but this circuit bernhardt decision stems i think a little raggedy from your question is on the discovery issue and i think bernhard that case by the circuit answers that very well this is the district court's discretion circuit leaves that went to the district judge to decide whether or not a hearing is necessary and the second circuit case is also cited there you can also look at the fifth circuit cases where they in one decision patterson they have allowed in camera for seating where the district court held that even a district court in paterson has said i don't think this was necessary as an abundance of caution and there was really no direction by the third circuit requiring such a hearing going back to bernhard said we conclude however that it is possible that the involvement of the federal authorities once the decision was made possible may be said and that may be sufficient and then he says it is unlikely there w several u s attorneys so it wasn't one all the time but he did send it back and in that case both sides requested an evidence rehearing so that that may be different but i don't little troubled by if it's possible anything's possible  and i think that judge noonan's opinion perhaps puts some breaks on that but still that terrible day that terrible dicta because i don't think anything is good so that makes  we're going to have a lot of evidentiary hearings if you were writing this decision and say we're going to publish a decision to kind of give some guidance for the district court what would you say is the showing that needs to be made before there state witnesses to cooperate with federal government satisfactory we also know that there can be trial court say we're going to have a hearing make us know anything it's all in the government what could be alleged i'm assuming that there can be a hearing based on sham because we said there is one and we sent one case back down for a hearing what troubles me is i don't have a clue as to how a district court sitting in a in one of our districts would understand that we're compelling in hearing what the showing would have to be  factually to do that other than supposition thank you get together every week so i want to find out what's going on now there's not many district courts they're going to grant a curing on that basis so how do we make some sense out of the two cases we have