that we had moved the court to take your dish notice of three items in a public record not motionless referred to the merits handle with the court's permission i would like to refer to two of those three items today free to refer to that so you me for now i should say i'm going to be timing you i would suggest you time yourselves mr guinness i see you have fourteen minutes use total you've taken out it's two minutes and it's all right and as i read your brief the argument was made that the your kissin testimony was unavailable to kaminski because your kissin was not talking and until knew we knew that there were a few witnesses in the criminal trial there was this wasn't one of these cases with thirty witnesses right there were four or five key witnesses in the trial correct well there actually were like thirty witnesses and it was a trial that went on for almost a month subpoena i guess the answer is well we didn't we didn't like we didn't want we didn't subpoena her obviously you knew you had the power to subpoena her but i suppose based on what you just said you didn't subpoena her because you assume that she was going to give unfavorable testimony right and we had discretion and whether the judge allowed thank the district judge rather allowed the motion to supplement right correct ok and i think if you apply to various factors that standard it's  you're looking at the actual testimony is there really an explanation of what parts of her testimony the previous testimony were false yes but the main thing is that she said not convinced me  the st and probably the most birth of the court of focus on is whether the circumstantial evidence community abuse establishing that he was in the role as a confidential informant and was officially not within the prosecutor's office memos of the cia but that's not enough for you to prevail in that right you still got to get over the immunity hurdle right well and obviously churchill in mahoney were they were investigators  lawyers but isn't it a functional test that if there it's the test isn't what their status is and what their title is the test is is what function they were serving at the time  right and why why were churchill and mahoney at all relevant times acting as part and parcel of the prosecution right it is a functional trust is a great start but it's also a question of isn't the real issue here their failure to disclose during this prosecution of your client their failure to disclose or even perhaps worse their project testimony about whether in i don't recall that interview is that the one where they sort of pretext really got kaminski to admit that he had some value in or some drugs on the boat which was then got them that's how they got the search warrant to search the boat when they had kaminski on their radar kaminski tying the circumstantial evidence that the state needed in order to a launch to the shooter more zaina without that testimony and his ability to impeach the witness it was critical and really devastating to have so i'm joined in his arguments and at this stage i feel that the qualified immunity is something that should be left to the jury and not as a matter case in new jersey supreme court what went on in the ocean county prosecutor's office and they specifically cite investigate him up mahoney it was involved with the how much side investigations  robert why are the office of the jurors your target general for the valleys and i think it's important in starting off to focus on what this case is about is a simple suit claiming violation of thing it is not an intent to reverse a criminal conviction and that's a problem for the plaintiffs here because while it makes all sorts of arguments that might support a request to overturn a criminal clear with respect to what they say the investigators or supposedly respond for it has to deal with whether they disclosed information during the discovery process in connection with connection but it is not something that provides for civil liability in fact it is subject to absolute immunity and i believe that it was judge harman before correctly separate need to do is do a functional analysis of what the claims are the claims here with respect to investigators and churchill and mahoney is that they knew information about lehman that they did not just was in the run up to the criminal trial things that are intimately associated with the judicial things are subject to absolute immunity if they're poor they're not in this case using a functional analysis any that they were acting as investigators when they brought women in under false pretenses and pretended that he was a hostile witness when he was in fact already signed up as a cia well law that i could find about whether appellate advocates for the state are entitled to absolute immunity the same way that we know prosecutors who are in the trenches  wearing you can keep a conviction on appeal is that the same guy that tried to case stays on throughout the appeal so what does that mean as a practical matter prosecutors officers are made to go back to the good old days where people actually did their cases from start to finish and let him bring in experts for every bitten piece of the case right that's what i mean that is one thing but as a guest i know a couple of you have been us attorneys and know that there are many asians some people concentrate on trial some people concentrate on its heels here's the problem with the position held counsel is not protect think about this case or ours in two thousand and nine there were hideous proceedings prosecutor himself perjured himself that doesn't shock the conscience that the prosecutor got somebody to give me in false statement that is even if some if the prosecutor then presented that person what the allegation is is that officer moneim got her to testify in a precarious back at the trial that is they're claiming he got her to perjure herself in her testimony in her testimony talking to witnesses about just one can result in can be related to only two proceedings a grand jury in which case page thirty eight liberty right but i mean i guess he was convicted of the the pretty substantial cocaine charge going to do some serious time anyway and your complaint here isn't that they won the civil case their complaint is that a man was wrongly convicted prosecution for these issues with the appeal reeves so it is not there there's no time twenty years before that forms a lot of what he's d saying is i don't want to for the audience and get involved in this case and they did prejudice of allowing allowing counsel to supplement the record well there are it has to do with the fact that this case was drawn or was in process for any number of years and the court's determination whether to consider testimony is thirty two years later the fact of the matter is she cast about a number of times in a contradictory back in which she was asked and there is no aggressiveness involved the issue isn't whether you can be more aggressive or less aggressive in scouring the record he only one of you can be more thorough or less there and for those reasons