not overwhelming as to mr d there was no identification of him at the scene where the shooter but the shooting occurred there was no identification of him in any of the cars that were allegedly involved at the time  indicated in our trial she didn't know who committed this shooting right but i do think that and mr bruce trial of sam was identified as the shooter by some other witnesses and he was convicted sam i'm sorry but cruz trial these were these witnesses appeared and he was convicted that's correct but that's why the suppressed evidence is so critical because in this trial the prosecutor argued that it was recent fabrication or out of fear that the victim's friends out of the blue identified mr san as the shooter and mr tallman as the driver and we know that they were the driver and the passenger in that particular car because they both admitted to it the police and one to a principle the counsel i struggle with prejudice that the superior court decided it saved us that had those two witnesses testified it likely wouldn't made a difference because mr boone was convicted anyway so i mean just in the interest of fairness i want to tell you here's my scorecard because i want to give you every opportunity to respond my my my concern is i'm just not sure was even exculpatory as to him the jury had cell phone records not venturing his earlier murder vicki brady testified that the said the gun is in ken's house there's shaky evidence putting your client in the black car i'm not sure why he needed to be in the black car given the charge of aiding and abetting the phone records and the testimony about where to find the gun and in fact it seems to me and might have been not even exculpatory because ultimately the person he was talking to on the phone tun and son probably did have the con if you believe the two witnesses inconsistent on numerous grounds she's the only one that says that she heard you say the gun was that as you sent speaking to canton which is a nonsensical statement but it's not when you when you when you trace that one back it's a matter of syntax so she  she the jury heard her say that your client identify where to get a gun well and that may be the case but she is the only one that heard that she was a cooperator the other thing is there is testimony that not everybody had phones and that phones were often who were that phones were borrowed all the time i never really had phones there's no evidence across for jeep was the one on the phone nobody recognized his but there was no specific evidence of you have loaned his phone to someone else on th e i would say there it is because why is view calling him on phone if he had his own phone so i think there actually is some evidence that he didn't have his phone on him at the time nobody placed him in any of the cars the only person who said he left with suppression the the the the police i believe suppress the identification of the driver of the car in the yearbook because they have a problem if tahn and san are the driver in the shooter because they didn't have again background blue and tran did they have a really difficult time getting a natural consequence theory passed the jury without a gang expert indicating that this is what gang members do so to argue the non gang members committed target crime and add to the report that he was one hundred percent certain that the acura integra was at the shooting and that was the car he had seen earlier in the evening circling ice cafe those that evidence was not it was was buried and i think was done intentionally because it's all circumstantial and it's actually very thin i mean there is no evidence that he said anything to anyone who was well that well there is the jury didn't have to believe vicky we but they could oh there is that one scene and i misspoke i'm sorry but there's no no statements like were very sad to vickie we were at the movie on friday night or don't tell anybody if anything comes up there's nothing showing any consciousness of guilt for me also testify that it was common for her to rent motel rooms for these guys one of the friends didn't have a place to stay and then when they wanted to stay together she would rent the motel room so there really wasn't any consciousness of guilt the fact that two days later they went and stayed in a motel room  found in the middle of beach boulevard i mean that's really it's buried in there but when you look at the record it makes it sound like it was found found in some obscure place that only these you know it was like it was found in the street yeah in the middle of the street and this is in westminster got what it why does that matter well some point there's indication cell site tower evidence that there's a some kind of a path i said but i think that if you go back to whether or not we don't have evidence that he was actually using this phone and i would make that argument unless the evidence supported the fact that two witnesses government witnesses said that the phones are borrowed so the issue of the courts pointed out is prejudice and whether or not this evidence was material it's the same standard under brady or i see i do think the suppression issue is important but i think the court can get to the issue either way but i think the suppression issue really shows what the government why why we have two different trials and the problem of the spirit court opinion in the red perceiving is that the superior court did have some of the information that was suppressed that court had a transcript of the audio interview where the victim's friend said i'm one hundred percent certain that the acura was the car that was at the shooting the shooter got out and was ten feet away from the car i saw him and it's the same car that was circling i saw earlier when we were hanging out at ice the superior court completely ignored all those facts so that would be  anyway and they use that as a as one of the doctors as to why didn't prejudice by the absence of this information how do you respond to that it didn't all come in abuse trial when when the surprise identification was made of the government witness of the the da came in and said well were you afraid you've never said you haven't said this before and were you afraid when the d a or the prosecution had in their hands interviews of these witnesses the boys testimony but not the other evidence to show that the boys have been testifying consistently they've been interviewed earlier and said the same thing earlier is that your answer yes and it's critical because this is again case fear is something that everybody is feeling in the courtroom when the  for a prosecutor get up and say are you afraid is implying that that's a recent fabrication and that's why they're saying that they also said they saw the mr sound in the hallway they recognized the spiky hair there was critical corroborate that not only what existed that flora's identified and so defense counsel had enough information to go into exactly what he views counsel did and that is go to the high school and get the yearbook and turn to the page the row number and the position number to see that  was withheld i understand the only thing that was withheld was that tone with the actual person not counting on to my question was there and i get that they didn't connect the dots or do their own homework but it sounds like the materials that were in possession of the state were produced is that right ye because it was nothing withheld correct your honor ok thank you so there was no suppression hearing because there was no suppression there is no brady error the state courts also reasonably rejected both the brady and the strickland claim based on lack of prejudice  the reasons that this court has already gone over like the theory of the prosecution's case was that people's liable as a meter in a better there was compelling evidence to support the theory the identifications of flora's and men of se and the shooter were problematic in that points out there was considerable evidence that cell phones were passed around from person to person and that not everyone have their own cell phone so how strong is the so phone much while you're driving and chasing a car well it's interesting the way you phrased it which is that it's sufficient and i don't think this is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence but only to the question have the virus prejudice have the problems with the f and the m's identification and the fact that the jury heard basically the same evidence against him yet they still convicted him so we have here more than just the strength of the evidence in this case we have another brady information the information at trial was not the same in views trial or even the identification that it was one hundred percent certain the car was the black integra there was no corroboration of that and that corroboration existed in the report not the report sorry it wasn't in the police report it existed in the transcript and the audio of that interview the other thing is there are materials that were not presented to the defense mr ford's looked at your book he had a year book in front of him there was no photograph of the year but i dug through everything and i could find no in that i find that page and i can find it and no where did it identify what high school he was from he was looking at your book i mean a search had to be done to various high schools figure out what your they were and figure out where in the  photograph he was based on that all the police had to do was take a photocopy of that your book and include that the so the court's right the standard is much lower than i think the people are arguing in this