the police withhold information in a murder case that a separate suspect has confessed to the murder and what you have is a police report from detective x saying mr a has confessed to the murder that's withheld ok that report is inadmissible in its current form it's hearsay it's a document introduced by an out of court declaring for the truth of the matter asserted but if that document were withheld in a murder case and that would be a material brady violation would it not but so much so admiss ibility is not the touchstone you may have other grounds but admissibility is not in the touch tone of that i mean i get back to the procedural bar human no no no because i'd like you to you can of course but i'd like you to answer this question st because if the district court apply did novo review and you say that that was wrong that the no review may have been appropriate if the state post conviction court applied the wrong brady stand and so i'm pressing you on why admissibility of the actual document that was withheld is the leap for brady claim it would have been the he would have asked at the deposition he would have asked those two detectives he would have deposed them and asked them you had an opinion did you that the girlfriend was involved why did you form that opinion you said that the girlfriend told you that she tied the victim's hands why did you come to that conclusion none of those questions were asked that is true you're assuming that i'm not assuming that we know from the record we found mr flynn lying down he was lucid when i asked him several times who shot him he only responded he wanted to go home that was all admitted at trial then he died suspicious fact she drove from the orange grove all the way to the  walker and when they had the opportunity to call it deputy walker is a witness at the evidentiary hearing with all deputy walk and when was that report i don't know what it was produce when was it ok when was it written i believe it was the night nine there was a different report that had been prepared by i believe the defense's investigator and again with their report they had an evidentiary hearing and that report and deputy walker never testified we don't know wh walker ever heard the closest we have is what is in deputy walker's report from the night of this crime that i believe it was she said she was told to tie his hands in even at the evidentiary hearing defense counsel page and i'd like to direct the court's attention to the nd page of the notes near the bottom it's the paragraph nd from the bottom is that the key issue and this is the information that was not disclosed which is in the appendix page one is for you mark and diane suspect suspect girl did it she changed her story couple times one thing was she st and it's hard to see but it's a one  was told to tie and told to is in bold this is the only emphasis added by the court in the entire sixty five page opinion told to thomas behind his back with  was not what is in these notes that it was far different and in fact the trial counts mr parker in his testimony he repeatedly said if i had had this information if i would have used to because it would to the heart of my case now the confirmed that what is in these notes is what he recalled and that's why nine hundred and ninety dollars some porton it's after the fact but we know what off so walker would have said if he was called to post but those depositions would have been completely different if these notes would have been closed these notes would have been a game changer while they would have they would have asked the two detectives why did you make it when you thought she did it were challenging the thoroughness and the good faith of the investigation they would that these officers in these notes were trying to paint a picture for the prosecutor that they had the wrong man and that the investigation was going in the wrong direction things had no in that case that were inconsistent his story was evolving over time those notes and statements were withheld this was also a murder case and the court ruled that that was a brady violation and one of the one of the main reasons that the court ruled as a brady violation is because inconsistent statements would have led will challenge the very thorough of the thoroughness of the investigation as well as the good faith nature of the that this court rejected last year indeed reverses florida and i will go to the appendix and identify specific where the standard of fairly presenting the federal claim was met and in fact it was it w brief to the florida supreme court and i would direct the court's attention to page seven hundred and twelve dollars argument roman numeral six the title there is the court erred in denying green's claim for at least based on individual instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and non disclosure of exculpatory evidence that's the that's the heading in the introductory paragraph on that same page is the statement where evidence was suppressed or can mr green is entitled to relieve brady or gig leo that identifies the federal claim it goes on in a subheading specifically focused diane suspect the girl did it she changed her story couple of times she said she tied his hands behind his back this was inconsistent with deputy walker's recollection of how a kid said that she was the one who actually did the time to flynn's hands and inconsistent with subsequent statements and eventual trial testimony it goes on for several pages it's the exact same sex same notes same argument that was presented to the district court and the same brady claim that we are referring to today it was fairly presented if there was any question in a subsequent post trial hearing the state court denied us we bringing up the brady claim again because it had to a close this is a case in which alexander crossley green was wrongfully can acted thirty years ago of a crime he did not commit one of the most dramatic  instances that would demonstrate the impact of these notes is that in the closing arguments in rebuttal the state prosecutor mocked mocked the theory that the girl did it in fact the very words  used was he called it ludicrous and grasping at perhaps no straws at all well the reason that that argument could be made was because these notes were and that was a violation of the brady rule a complaint about the withholding of this documented in the brief to the full supreme court they mention just yes they mentioned that document and they said it was a brady violation to follow with me ok did mr griffin identify if you want to say quote that's fine to this document in his brief to the florida supreme yes did he claim that there was an improper withholding of this document from the defense is claim was entitled something to the effect of he was denied ineffective assistance of counsel there was a brady claim and there was a g oakley and that was pretty much the extent of his argument did he say that the brady claim was based on the withholding of this document it would if you really read into it it could have for example judge the st question you asked me the state trial court made this finding is that a correct material at materiality finding that was never argued to the state court if that's the basis of his argument that had to have been presented to the state court none of these you know if if the court if the court if the claim was exhausted if we disagree with you the claim was exhausted and the florida supreme court didn't address it you don't get it but deference well we do have state court factual finding believe it was i believe this court's finding that this time when he would not have been in mr wood no further objection to that everybody said oh yeah their opinions would not have been in middle aisle i thought i thought to the inquiry i thought you said the florida supreme court did not address to or your argument is that he just didn't do enough in his brief to preserve rect that claim correct but it's not traveling along to judge tractors question it's not that he did identif stories that she had been telling somehow we've never in we've never heard it i mean they're inadmissible affidavits that they have i'm saying is i'm just looking at but they didn't they never spoke to kim halleck the only person who spoke to kim hallett that night was deputy walker and we don't know what she told deputy walker we have the here's his report and when they were given the opportunity to and the florida supreme court doesn't address that in any way whatsoever because at that point you're not dealing with proceed the florida supreme court has a claim present in one way shape or form it doesn't address think the court has something alluding to this document and the word of a case named brady you agree with me so far yes the florida supreme court does nothing with that the court has claims seventy one through seven in a brief ok one through seven the supreme court of florida says mr green has raised six claims one through six they miss