and live testimony given by corporal green that they come into court and they argue affirmatively that they have a valid point now the state is under a duty to ascertain the veracity of the statements they make in court if there was if this was a new fourteenth one thousand nine hundred two when matthew struck housefull knew that the search actually took place on january thirteenth nine hundred ninety two rather than undertake any investigation or ask the question why trial counsel simply assume that the judge signed the concerning the indian sovereignty issue was completed by the time that he noticed the facial regularity on the search warrant at the time he noticed the facial irregularity he chose at that point not to investigate it this was well before matthews played with plead guilty and was advised to plead guilty by trial counsel when he noticed that he simply undertook no investigation only because he made a mistaken assumption he had no strategic or tactical decision or purpose behind his  decision the record has the affidavit of david nevin who is a recognized expert in the field of idaho criminal law and he testified that this behavior that not asking the question of why the warrant was dated after the date of the actual search fell outside the wide range of professional norms of defense counsel in idaho the idaho supreme court also uses the status of the law as a basis to excuse trial counsel's lack of investigation it's important to note the trial counsel did not put this forward as a reason himself he was just laboring under a mistaken assumption so he didn't even know that the warrant was assigned at the time that it was executed however even if he that's correct and matthews to the idaho supreme court held the evidence seized in this case would have been held and admissible and the basis for that decision with the idaho constitution and idaho statutes the idaho statutes which just mention the i don't  make clear the point that locker lockhart first fret well was not meant to change the normal prejudiced analysis in other words the result must have been different in this case the facts clearly demonstrate that the result would have been different we know that now and just because this is a place of first impression that's not mean that the underlying lot which came from the statutes and came from the president what was unclear holding in the opposite direction would have been particularly surprising given that given the trial counsel simply assumed an incorrect fact without any basis for his decision to do so but like i said some of my rules i don't think the police courts i think it's important to put this case in perspective this is not a case where the state invited who is the great satan walking into our house without a warrant and doing all kinds of misdeeds and bad to show her something but not that he had to have an actual warrant in here because in that at that time the state of idaho no one knew that you had to have a warrant in hand that was actually signed counsel relied upon a number of things they did your honor they they cited that they said twice it was an issue of first impression and in fact right under i believe on page eight can't find it now  day there was clearly a conflict at that time there was a covered over what should happen yeah sure and then you didn't have the sign actually your honor i think that there was more of a conflict than just what would happen there was a conflict as the warrant for the judge and you take the warrant subsequently to the judge and he will then sign the following day recognizing that statute doesn't apply in this particular case it demonstrates just how technical this small mistake was and in the case why there is not an effective assistance of counsel in this particular case why wouldn't you know from my experience with defense counsel in serious cases like i can't remember that actually matthew is now and i was confused myself there was an evidentiary hearing and i can't recall if it was it was after matthew's one and i can't recall if the big evidence for hearing took place for m but that was the determination of the article supreme court on that particular issue was that we have to interpret this statute district court you have misinterpreted it therefore take this interpretation of our statutes back and determine whether there was ineffective that's not an effective assistance of counsel i'm not going to basically exercise a very minute part of an overall investigation in this case and say yeah it's rather simple that it was simply have clerical mistake and particularly since counsel didn't know the status of the law at that time it wouldn't jump out and say gosh i'd better make sure it's a clerical mistake it was a reasonable assumption to assume she claims to have spoken with counsel but we don't know when we don't know how many times we don't know the subject matter of the conversations and i don't fault chelsea so i think you have an matthews in this case we certainly can't make any assumptions about what he would have testified to but i certainly believe that it's something that with should have i question whether there is deficient performance a question of lot and simply because one of the lawyers that ya done the best i doesn't mean that every lawyer in idaho is going to do this or any other state mr never and doesn't indicate in his claims i have a hard time with these two claims specifically because i like mr grody didn't know what the law was neither the state and of the supreme court said this is the law are in matthew's too there wasn't any exculpatory evidence here there was nothing there was no bad faith on anybody's part in fact the only information that we have regarding the state's knowledge of the date is an affidavit from a deputy prosecutor says yes i knew that the date was different but we have no opinions were issued prior to that date that's the key issue right there's an hour the importance of after coleman from this court and this court statement that when there's a split in the circuits that can be narrowly read but if the united states supreme court has crafted an exception for brady for the purposes of affirmative defenses and impeachment evidence i would suggest directly submit that there is also an exception  decision was reasonable it didn't there was no reason really to question that and i recognize now with twenty twenty hindsight that mr brody would find out that motion but cats were not required to be psychics they're a few points your honor so i'll try to be brief and as regards why this case is here today after matthews to the idaho supreme court ruled that matthew's remaining issues were moot in between matthews two and matthews three there was a judicial election in idaho that a step from matthews to the came the majority in math history the fact that the police officer could have telephoned the judge points out why the police officer should not have resorted to perception and this case should not be here today because the police officer should have followed the correct procedures the status of the law has nothing to do with matthew smith who claims the