new trial as your requests to state the receipt of the original information and if he's found guilty of possession with the intent to distribute the subject to a mandatory class that sentence with the sentence range of six to thirty years the six year minimum is a year more than he now faces he faces a maximum of thirty years and he has a long past history of drug convictions he could receive along right now  officer rogers was the only witness to testify about the surveillance during which rogers allegedly observed mr sanders darks several narcotics sales there's ample case law from this court that if the case against accused turns almost exclusively on the testimony of a single witness as it did in this case that disclosure must almost always be ordered and that's because challenging the credibility of the state's only testifying witness is essential to th now from mr sanders person and they did find currency on him but there was no testimony that the currency in any way related to the narcotics sales for ample and palmer the officer testified well they found twenty dollars on him and they were location of the site where the officers were located and also the yellow up that is in terms of all when the transactions were taking place so how is this factually the same as here but in this case across the street from the vacant lot one house over or something to that effect but i'm fairly certain there was more than one house across from the state lot which seems to be fairly large so there really wasn't any indication because that officer was on the ground on that did come out but here there really was not a chance to testify earth to cross examine other than defense attorney challenge how far he was from sanders when he  saw him whether he was elevated at the time whether he was west of sanders what was his view when you st saw him so he did ask questions on cross examination about the location if you look at every manual i am which is another st district case there was nothing indicating that that officer could not observe that defendant as he was apparently flashing gang signs towards centrists the park and that's the same with jackson which is of course also with th court also reversed and there was no indication in jackson that the view was on a street was obstructed in any way it was a clear view so really that is not the only determining factor and again i want to go back to the errors that happened in this case  that was in jack's and that was also a problem that occurred and that there was no exact location ascertained and the reviewing court said without knowing the exact location the court couldn't exercise its discretion properly and so that was an abuse of discretion the nd problem that happened in this case is that after the in camera hearing when the court came back on the record the court said i'm going to deny the defendant's motion to disclose the surveillance on location and there was never that opportunity which in jackson and this court said is mandatory it's required that after the court have to in camera hearing it decides the state has met its burden which it does either by showing that it was those surveillance happened on private property or that there is a public interest and it's a useful location that would be compromised by this closure so the court and the in camera hearing made the germination of the state admits murder and it needed to then get the defense an opportunity to robot that burden and that challenge and that upholding of the privilege but the defense never got that chance here he should have been able to and he wasn't in jax and that was a huge reason for the reversal of the conviction this court said that is a mandatory required opportunity that is a critical component in protecting a defendant's right to confrontation so that was the nd error that occurred in this case and for those reasons that the court the court's application of the it correct that the state still has to prove that charge and here the defendant was unable to cross examine the only state's witness against him just because the court found that the state didn't meet its burden and establishing intent of the liver doesn't mean that we should find him guilty without the state giving him a meaningful opportunity to challenge that evidence against him on both charges thoroughly the credibility of the surveillance officer and that officers testimony was corroborated by the recovery of sixty nine dollars from the finding in this case that if it was allowed to ask how far the officer was from the defendant the answer was approximately three houses defense counsel was allowed to ask the officers position relative to the defendant and the answer was west of that if that defense counsel was also allowed to ask the officer the angle oil packets of heroin from the yet ready in yellow cardboard paper the officer saw it and retrieve these objects from now the senate in his brief lies on four primary cases on this particular point for nigh night manual and palmer and then jackson for the last of what she's this division's decision foreign oil from two thousand and sixteen is especially important in this case because it in its terms distinguishes our current case from that in florida and foreign oil the officer saw defendant receive currency from three separate buyers and never lost sight of the defendant but when they stopped the defendant there was no way there was no money no similar back when it is in your honor and polar the officer wasn't three house lengths away he was forty yards away he had to use binoculars and on top of that the officer there were three transactions but only twenty dollars were recovered so this is far different than our case and also differ from our case is the night case in two thousand and one which is really where this court set forth the procedures for when the surveillance privileges is to be implemented and they are unimportant and they were also was fifty feet away saw three quarters of the defendants face while say the defendant for one to two minutes a lot of people in the area and again in in night just as in florida no money was recovered in that event and it's from night that defendant it defense counsel quoted this part of it the almost always language that almost always it's almost always required to have the exact surveillance location disclosed when the officers testimony it's based primarily on the officers testimony and it's uncorroborated it said uncorroborated part that was missing from this case and from depends on it's here it was testify that he saw defendant going back and forth to read was it a reading yellow paper and then when they went to the scene it was a red yellow cardboard and so that matched up decisive with what the officer observed from being three housings away the defendant also talk argument here about manual m far different case that the officer wasn't just a few house lengths away that officer was two blocks away and testified it that he or several buildings between the park and the surveillance location two blocks away florida from this case as jackson also out of this division two thousand and seventeen defendant sites have for two reasons there were four independent reasons in jackson this found to be reversible there those four reasons include that the court the circuit court failed to ascertain the exact surveillance location in the in camera hearing nd that the officer testified in camera to matters unrelated to the location the rd separate reason was that the state appeared to the court allegedly not ascertaining the specific location that's that's not true with in the in camera hearing the officer didn't testify to this he didn't name the specific street address but he got into even more detail that came out it trial so it was even already considered already had the written motion from defense counsel as to all the reasons why defense counsel for all felt that was necessary here judge wilson help in camera hearing and then came out on the record and said after balancing this i'm going to restrict you from getting into the exact location but you can get and everything else and defense counsel's response was thank you judge i mean there wasn't really anything else noice are here at this point your honor because this defendant was allowed to of the procedure and having just the officer and the or her order and the proceeding the problem really that exists with both jackson and our case is that the defense was never given that required mandatory opportunity to get a chance to respond so although the state was then and then in camera hearing with the part of the officer the real error that was that was improper but the real error came from depriving the defendant of this essential right to challenge the office to challenge that finding of the privilege and applying and being able to protect his right to confrontation so that's really the big error but the testimony was very sound learned jackson in that the officer errors here and that there was no sort of exact surveillance location determined how little said well he said i was i was three houses over cross the street it was there's a lot of different locations that could be that could satisfy maybe it's one house maybe it's a different house maybe there's a tree in the middle of two houses we just don't know and defense counsel because he couldn't know the exact location was not able to challenge that officer's testimony on his view he wasn't able to investigate the case by seeing the actual location or even pulling it up i'm google maps with the address he had no knowledge of facts that would challenge the officer sesame it's just stood on  practical where across the street there's a lot of different places that i mean are there only three houses so that you know it has to be this one house without some sort of certainty defensives defense council cannot really challenge the officers testimony and that is a big problem in this case and he was never even given the chance to explain why it was important to his defense to rebut the safe application of the privilege in this case is really  i think he had the norton that is that this was not a transaction where there was money being cajun the person was taking something right out of their pocket this was a this was testimony where the officer was going to i'm sorry that the defendant was going to  a location and retrieving something and was red and yellow or red and gold and then that he was making a change so i mean do you think that's not something to rock ration when there's actually there was substances recovered but in each of these cases there needs to be some form of other corroborate and education to the fact that there was no cash recovered which definitely indicated something suspicious when the officer testified i saw him get cash and there was no cash but the other thing that for now i look sad is there's no other evidence