but what i will say to you is this this case was a mass from soup to nuts from beginning to end this case was i'm sorry to say some one time practitioner i would consider it to have been a mass of no fault of the defendants at all but we have in this case generally speaking we carol the damaging defamatory evidence of a false nature being presented to ford ranger e we have a prosecutor who intentionally or otherwise fabricate evidence of a collage purportedly created by a defendant who actually rips off pieces of paper which we believe in the hope that he might not in the home and in desire not to look at it and we also have what i consider all three of the things we look out for  criminal cases we have the failure to provide very very important crucially important exculpatory evidence to a defendant until after the proof had closed twice in this case before take a look at what this grand jury heard vs the reality of the case what was the great injury presented with i define it was a child porn dealer with a collection of child pornography including pictures and case her the reality should there be and the only pictures that we recovered from this defendant were from a commercial web site that case that said all of our models are eighteen years or older these pictures were torn off and intended to be thrown in the garbage and no other child pornography of any nature was found during the execution of our search warrants in this case that's what the grand jury should have heard and i ask your honour's to consider cited both by the state in defending this case let's look at the fair cations for the cases we're falling back on for authority in this case in the case of oliver oliver interesting the fabrication that resulted in the during the transaction being testified regarding now he didn't testify falsely he told the truth about what the other officer saw but it was the simple fact that he had presented again it that he was present that he was an occurrence witness in during the greentree proceeding and hunter asked was there any evidence presented that the car slipped or fall or it was a mistake in some way shape or form and in that case the witness responded no one statement one statement by one  in this particular case if we look at the degree of prejudice that happened and i don't mean to be dramatic with you but if i take a look at the grand jury transcripts were minute and i never held out i think all of the areas that were false in this transcript it's only six evidence is important what are we have we have a grand jury that was presented with two indictments two counts of the a nightmare the second count being the over twenty five second video all of what purported to be child pornography they had second not true that evidence did not exist it was not found in the friend's house that was never recovered it was later dismissed by the state but the grand jury did not know that at the time it was presented we have child pornography being offered in the grand jury that he was a distributor of the child pornography we have anything to today's dating in the states brief the state refers to the defendant's ip address well this is the the facts in this case bear out the ip address the larger the parents even though he was the primary computer the ip address the larger the parents in this case but the bottom line is in front of the grand jury we're saying we're offering these movies like fo lack of a better term was performed by mr byers computer out of the scene and that experiment was that they printed out their very page that formed the basis for the conviction in this case that they printed it out from the memory of the they ask because of the testimony is in the defendant in these children to defend it should have known or reasonably should have known were under eighteen in the officer is hers yes the bottom line is this is a situation where somebody can test this claim or someone knew it was a commercial website somebody knew there was a good management that the models were eighteen years of all their this evidence was never presented like five page four again like i said it false actions being indicated that there was actually a computer printout created from the memory which did not exist in this case that there was a twenty five second video recorder that had twenty five second video was recorded in the computer file was found during the search warrant and then they say that this individual heading up a quote large collection of child pornography when in reality what he had was a torn up piece of paper to get printed off of his computer that was torn off and put in a pile tend to be put into the garbage it goes further than that getting about getting to distributors is it possible to track them down the grangers sense and so it's clearly ranchers mind that he's not buying distributor stuff at this point in time at least somebody had their gr a commercial web site that there was no other pornography file that he was not distributing them that they could not in fact could not have printed off their computer that piece of paper that forms the basis  of mistakes of the relevance aspect of it is not necessarily the focus has been found in could have been connected to the defendant in the proper evidence three ways this evidence would be admissible in the normal normal case of child tapes truly and accurately the pace the image that it purports to show in the video we have none of that testimony here because we have nobody who saw the video before other than the officer sullivan who testified in the case that  was the other way to you would you would bring in a tape like this would be able to use the old kind of tried and true chain of custody got all the evidence three issues number one it would be recovered from the defendant's computer so that there was a nexus between  the fantasy and the tape that it was not modified in any way shape or form that the hard drive in the file was remain to be purely government would have a program to do they asked to make sure that we could verify that we're getting them pure computer program  and then later presented to none of that was here what we know about this video that was admitted is one thing and one thing only they at the most five seconds was from the defendant's computer after most five seconds of it at most and the rest of it was swarmed from all their computers off of the wire system this in a case where the evidence forming the basis for the france was not found on line wire had nothing to do with line wire iris admitted there is no case in the state where evidence was admitted that was gathered from on known third parties computers to be used against the fender in this cause i read about this worm work i thought that was kind of a concept that i  your hard drive hoping they can go into your or her drive and try to me see what you've got in there in other words but all they can really do is the first three seconds the in other words the knowledge meant that their file may have some time been there and this isn't right click but the first three seconds or five seconds may have gotten your computer before you could hit the bot so what do we do now as police officers we go online where you may have some weak him no  knowing how much what do we do in this case we gather evidence from all watching on computers and said you know what this is john meyer state and i would submit to this court that there is simply regardless of the relevancy issues simply outside the rules of evidence as far as the admissibility goes there is discretion is it comes to relevance i think a large degree of discretion for the trial court but what comes to issues of foundation for evidence i think the rules are pretty hard to the defendant states that there is no foundation whatsoever again that is not typically brought up as the chain of custody and even if it was brought up as a chain of custody objection it does sharing network has several computers that all create segments of a video so that a new user can watch the game but they all come from different sources however and this is the most telling comment here you can find on the record child pornography and we know that it was from his ip address and then he admitted he was the pointer user of the computer and if anything on the computer was hit again look at each one of the records so when you have that i would point this court one who wants one more  six months and that was for sticks and chains used primarily an eighteen or nineteen year olds girls he had a hard look at the pictures of those girls attempting to look younger and he seemed to that he would like to receive that he would sometimes are seen pop up ads for under as per no themselves surely unclearly contradict that calling the defendant should know and certainly the defendant should not be a so on the winds if you might put it to selectively destroy the fifth but not actually discard them in the trash and pieces of evidence which show beyond any reasonable doubt that he surely should have no have not known that he shouldn't reasonably that the image is that he had a child who morphine and he did not discard that's how we get there mentioned it in his first ruling he said you know i'd really like to know what's in their hard drive and that was one of the reasons i asked to reopen the proofs was th it really was judge and if i may be allowed to run of the reason it was as i'm able to twenty seventh the print out contains the date it was printed out the hard drive was exchanged a month before there none of those images were expanded and none of those images were found in the hard drive it's no judge i would submit no judge i'm asking you to look at the fairness of what was presented from the beginning of this case to the very end of it it began with false allegations false evidence false experiments being testified to f asking you to retry the case judge i mean asking you to please look at this case look at this guy's the one incident he has in his life in our justice system and look how he was treated from the beginning to the very end and how it would have affected his due process corrections and part of the grand jury how are we ever make things crack in this situation if a conviction is all the only we can come before your honor to show these errors that occurred then i would submit to the court is duty bound to look at the proceedings of the grand jury and to say you know what if prejudice was shown if there was a substantial likelihood that they would have voted differently that this is the surety of the process that we care for you to look at the grange or email say no i don't disagree with your i just wonder about the supreme court and argument returning into this case that these were rigged up in some strategic form that's what was the class argument in the class argument was that was not true it's the same thing with the argument about the hard drive well we didn't mind going on here we really didn't look that john myers head any more than three to five seconds we know his testimony is i see something i don't like i turn it off we also know judge they did hear a collection of adult pornography and it was nowhere near where this stuff