still applies as it pertains to judging basically and that is when one hears a story whether it's an account or in the newspapers certainly the court does it when reading briefs in this instance the issue is when a witness testifies before the grand jury and evaluate in that testimony you have to be able to consider the source the deprivation the due process inherent in this case is that the grand jury was not told the source of the evidence that was presented to it and th where the grand jury is concerned the first is whether the prosecutor deliberately or intentionally mislead the grand jury the second is using known perjure or false testimony and the third is presenting other deceptive or whether this was a summary as was the case in the second district case that leaves a creek there was no indication that this was merely the result of an investigation but the question in the outset was what happened and the officer started disclose to the grand jury that it's hearsay each of those cases then distinguishes that claim immediately and says but in this case there was no way for the grand jury to not know that this was not an occurrence with as they say very clearly that the facts i don't know how and that's part of the factual question here and part of the reason why the standard review is an abuse of discretion as opposed to did no because it's a question of fact as to whether the grand jury knew that the following the first by a two week period there are thirteen grand jurors only twelve have to appear there were apparently twelve that signed the initial order that was placed before them you know the  notion that they requested this officer i think is is speculative to the extent that the officer testified before the judge in this case that he had appeared before rangers for the last six years that was as a this special concurrence in all over talked about and this is where i think the notion that these are leading questions which are not normally proper come into play because it as the special concurrence in all overstated sets up a since a lot of standard you know if a grand jury in this case knew that it was hearsay although i think there are questions in and that certainly is part of the analysis regarding the contradictions regarding some of the claims that could not have come from the evidence that concern the board such as the claim that he was shouting or yelling which can't be told from from the audio tape or i'm sorry the videotape but in all over the course very clearly and always the sufficiency of the evidence bits and we're not doing so is a generalization of probable cause and in fact we want to specifically say we are not saying that we would not have come probable cause had the sufficiency of the ovens because one of the concerns about grand jury proceedings and certainly one of the concerns by this trial judge was whether a holding the grand jury finding would undermine the judicial system there was a concern here about the the massive bills of indictment there were being had there were concerns about questions that don't even identified at the witness for the grand jury you know from the record and that's the only you can evaluated this state there's no ability to know that the procedures were properly followed that the granger and you and we should have to wonder whether they in fact knew it was hearsay it's there for it to the extent that it wasn't disclosed and while recognising again that there are cases that say there is no firm the duty to the slows it says that in cases where it's clear to the grand jury that in fact concerned with the the evidence that he termed unreliable or that specifically the inconsistency was what you thought was unreliable it was also troubled by the courier ization of the defendant durham and  by the misconduct of the prosecutor and there's indication in the record that this was the second time that the defendant had been in the circumstance and had obtained the dismiss indictment against him the judge commented that he was concerned that these states a true these officers had not changed his procedures after that happened the first and only time only other time in this day that he could think of in his twenty five or thirty years of experience in a courthouse or an indictment of been dismissed and and so there's there's a little question or seems to be in the judge's mind as to whether there there there was reference to sloppy procedures and interestingly that's the exact same language that the corn used in this case as well if there are no further questions then i would ask that because the source of the evidence against him was not disclosed to the grand jury allowing it to issue a meaningful indictment by ask that the court