and then a question of whether or not the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr howe is a sexually dangerous person i would like to would discuss it first the brady the brady issue as this court is awa and must be willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the state and the accused much be prejudiced because the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment in this case this is obviously especially dangerous persons act case that stems from an underlying criminal offense in this case the two alleged sexual assaults against the same individual mr house initial underlying criminal offense is criminal felony case in this case fall under occurred in december eleventh two thousand and eleven during the investigation of that it was discussed an offense occurred on april fourth of two thousand and eleven the police were called out to their marital home the police arrived took statements and specifically a written statement on april fourth two thousand and eleven they were both subsequently char's the evidence the record shows with domestic battery those counts were later dismissed by the scott county state's attorney's office subsequently the december sexual soul incident charges for that somebody found another written statement was made by miss how it's unclear from the record whether it's the state's attorney's office or the local sheriff or police department after the filing of the sexual dangerous persons petition the only one of those two statements and i will note the statements are very different the aberforth two thousand and one statement makes no reference to any sex assault makes no reference to any sort of sexual penetration either by his penis or in earth digitally makes no reference whatsoever the june seventeenth two thousand and twelve statement discusses that very fully discusses him penetrating her describes him placing his penis in her vagina and lo and behold when it came to the point of submitting documents to experts which is count which is how these s t p cases work and  a violent person cases where because well it was the june seventeenth two thousand and twelve statement that was provided to the experts it was the june seventeenth two thousand and twelve statement that was provided to the defense and it wasn't until approximately third day of trial that the april fourth two thousand and eleven statement that made no reference whatsoever to any sex assault occurring is provided to the  that point one of the state's expert witnesses had already testified one of the defense expert witness a testified and it's unclear from the record it appears that that statement was provided possibly right before the second state expert testified miss how the author of these statements had already testified she was subsequently allowed to be the defense was allowed to recall her the issue is this is a very different statement the april fourth two thousand eleven statement as i said contains no reference to sexual sol no reference to penetration absolutely nothing i know the first issue and the state that anybody have a question that brady would apply to these sorts of cases there is no argument from the state i'm not saying that as an argument a waiver but i'm saying that nobody even consider that as a possibility i think it's very important these this court and the supreme court have extended and ensured that those individual subs subject to possible lifetime commitment have what are term criminal rights right to counsel right to a jury the state must prove them specially dangerous or sexually violent beyond a reasonable doubt i think it's this also is one of those due process rights the brady violate brady right is another one is due process rights that must be extended to sexually dangerous and sexually violent cases the state ordinaire brief the feasibility of applying brady normal criminal case involves one  incident sexually dangerous cases can involve a number of incidents over a number of years and that is accurate however that's belied by the fact the state provides it provided information from six counties in illinois other than scott and from st lucie county down in florida they provided over six hundred pages of documents photographs of ron of one of his mr house former paramour's  impeaching statement it is has no relevance to sex assault nor france whatsoever there are a number of other things that are differences between these two statements where she was whether she came into the home whether she was in the bedroom whether he had been smoking marijuana or whether he'd been drinking and obviously as i said i'll say again no reference whatsoever to a sense of self and this is very important thing yes and it's and it's very important because even at the december eleventh two thousand and eleven incident the instant incident for this case when the op when the deputy rise who was the same deputy miss house stated oh problem and it wasn't until prospect half hour to an hour later that she was a passive in hospital over in jacksonville that she then later disclosed it so it does raise questions about her disclosure her ability to provide information to the police and obviously in this providing allegations of a sex assault a year and three months later in two months later the other issue it only needs to be willfully willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the state there's at least inadvertently the record is clear on that the power prosecutor's office was the primary attorney prosecuting the state prosecuting this case when this issue came up she told the court that she was not aware of this that she herself was not aware of the statement until that day however that statement yet pro statement was in the scott county state's attorney's office which was described as downstairs it was in the same three motion to use other sex offenses then again this is prior to the s b t s d p petition and he listened described it as it was written in the in the june twenty twelve statement not the a prefer statement and there's an interesting quote at the end of that discussion and describing the offense he states reports provided to defense counsel well the state's attorney chose which purports to provide at that time and it was not the april reasonable probability that the results of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been properly disclosed rogers this was disclosed on the third day of trial the trial court did try to make some curative facts by allowing the defense to recall miss how however i would argue that was not a meaningful cross examination he had had that statement for at most a couple of hours while doing the hour an expert was testifying while the deputy was testifying so he is trying to prepare for cross examination while he is doing cross examination the other witnesses on a statement he had received only hours befor or any examination of miss halcombe was not enough not he did not have adequate time to prepare for all of that cross examination it's also h upon whether the astros are able to review these materials reveal it and the totality materials i know one of whom not already know that yes yes well i think one of the difficulties is and i think one of the experts described it as he would have to these experts can review this material properly i would note it's interesting you bring that up because dr killian one of the experts in talking about the reporting of the april two thousand and eleven offense stace in testimony she then also said while she was discussing that meaning the december incident that he had raped her about eight months previous to that he makes another couple of other statements were similar to that essentially what i'm getting at is for some reason dr killen believed that in december of two thousand a lab she made that you say shines when that is not in the record whatsoever that was not that is nobody else belie that so in some respects that goes to his ability to remember and process these materials and that's a danger because if he thinks that she made the statement in december two thousand and five and nobody else believes that nobody else thinks that it's very important though you know if you started that but then you see completely contradictory information well where where does the balance go that and i would say i would argue that it's reasonably probable that in reviewing that they would say well there's actually a question as to why this a pro april fronts there actually is a question as to whether this actually occurred whether or not he committed any offense against her complete opportunity to make the a killer pulled a knife on her she had to use the knife to stab i'm only saying yes she didn't go far enough to say oh and by the way he did that it's there's a similar allegation that she did not these discrepancies and they had no opportunity to see this major discrepancy this major issue which is not disclosing this for a year year and three months you know two months counsel received that he definitely was seated that morning it's unclear whether was before the nine o'clock or or somebody was xerox out the xeroxing as they describe during the testimony it appears that he did have it issue which i'll do the same subject to the court's approval and then surely i think we both agree that there's no illinois cases says brady applies to sexually to detain them mr edwards for six months when the experts reports the expert had contradicted herself so he was detained for six months for no reason and the state dismissed the ways to get information but putting that aside if brady does apply i don't think this is the right case to argue there but if it does apply at one point when it was the base but they gave it to council and been around a long time as a trial lawyer prior practitioner prosecutor now judge said i'm going to give you wide latitude i took that t those cases were dismissed that's at record volume one twenty one i'm sorry page twenty eight so presumably there's to cooma knew about the april for incident presumably had the report so therefore he would know but she didn't mention the y if if they had every poor jekyll and they're allowed to really miss how and treat her as a hostile witness that that's not in the record but that's basically what he did and the judge said you got the right latitude and the judge here went to great lengths to say who we believe in who we didn't really he was the trier of fact he was in the position to add all this up and come up with the right are state referenced extreme circumstances and said there are no extreme circumstances in the situation i live in extreme circumstance when this impeaching document is within the office of the state's attorney's office in the building  the office of the person sitting at the table the individual who i believe the record showed dismissed that case previously he clearly had this document on there is no question about that that that was in the state's attorney's office and it's interesting to note i discussed before about them providing documentation from six other counties it's interesting to note that the only  county provided to the experts provided discovery were reports we're going to december two thousand and eleven the incident offense the june two thousand and twelve another of incidences between the house between april of two thousand and eleven in the summer of two thousand and eleven where it's not clear one hundred percent whether police were called either the scotts county sheriff's office or local police department including a december seventeenth two thousand and eleven incident where even dr killen describes he was charged with another count of domestic battery it's not clear from the record whether dr killian dr jekyll dr wetherspoon or even the defense were provided with anything referencing a december seventeenth two thousand and eleven incident other than that there are no descriptions as the only incident or the only source of the information of incense and scott county are december eleventh police reports and the june two thousand and twelve statement  very very late in trial i know the court had a question about can the doctors be recalled can other things occur unfortunately as the record shows and commonly shows schedule experts can be an arduous task and even in this instance dr witherspoon the defense expert testified out of order so to speak because of time because of scheduling  and that happens and courthouses throughout the state and throughout the country all the time in conclusion i would ask this court find that brady does apply that in this case brady was violated that