evidence will start with the police misconduct is extraordinary in this case the lead detective testified under oath that he knew quote three men did not do this crime period and to the element of whether i think the court's asking about bad faith and i think we're going to answer that question by saying in this case we don't we are attempting to show that the defendant understood the materiality u of the evidence and and suppressed in in bad faith i mean i don't think you have to sound so i guess i'm answering that question by saying in this case the facts so beyond the pale that we don't need to know  didn't want the police to be involved that's why they told the police that they didn't know anything but they had the jury known that the those two witnesses told ricky young the exact same thing moments after the shooting with no reason to said and he even says i'm not i don't know why they're doing this i didn't they know i didn't see what happened and you know the answer is clear they need some evidence to be able to go after the plaintiff they don't have any evidence because so important that there was no other evidence of guilt there was no physical evidence there was nothing to support these convictions and we know what happened in the criminal retrial you know alex  his previous i got a kitchen of the place he took the th and literally and brown gave a very very choppy and uncredible testimony and said i didn't see anybody get out of the red car and he was heavily impeached by the fact that he was coarse and threatened and at the end of the day the judge reached you know looked at that evidence and concluded that the plaintiff should be acquitted of this of this crime but also by judge kampala in his decision that that's not accurate as much of their state material and were produced to rate ok now those conclusions i know you disagree with ok but they are they are far from arbitrary or inventing or anything like that i mean they do have some in there in the record that is before us so the question i have is why doesn't tack create a genuine you know material facts for a trial you may win ok you may not all together different to be telling your mother your sister i'm sorry your mom and and friends i well i didn't see what happened so from a from a criminal defendants perspective the reason the tapes are important is because recording by the ideal speed so they're not just talking to their sister or their mother they're talking to the warden they're talking to the program they're talking to the police they know what to say and not implicate themselves so course they're going to say i wasn't there i don't know anything about it they don't want their parole to be violated they know they're being taped going to jailhouse phone of course they're going to lie those are not reliable conversations that's another reason why they're not admissible there's a host of reasons wh transcriptionist doesn't verify their completeness or their authenticity it just says that on this date i transcribed takes so we don't have a version of the tapes you know former format that's admissible or liable and for that reason alone i think the all he knows just what people told him and that includes statements from witnesses that he took not that taking a statement from somebody and having a sort of a  not sure about the district court opinion because i think the way i read it on the city without without there being any individual violation the district court just didn't even reach the claims against the city didn't in regular certified court reporter they were verified and those transcripts have been attached they could have submitted competing transcripts or argue the jury that the transcript you know that their words inaudible and things like that but all of the arguments th