eavesdrop orders be suppressed and it which and the statements he made after the judge found he had invoked his right to counsel also not be admitted at trial unless the state shows that those statements are actually inconsistent with this trial testimony suppress this free not necessarily an attack on the second application itself but that it was the fruit of the first unlawful order and it in phase i can go to that issue in the initial each truck order example the party seeking party could have brought in additional evidence at the hearing but the order reflects in effect the judge who ruled on a motion to suppress the record it reflects of the only thing that was considered inference that any individual who's incarcerated on a charge of a violation of an order of protection is likely seeking to have this ex wife killed and i just don't think that's a reasonable inference from now i think what they could've done but first of all curtis washington primarily the information here is based on information through curtis washington who think it's fair to say it was a person of highly dubious credibility he it's basically a career fee and at the time he made these statements to the officers he was in jail because he was awaiting sentencing on one of his own pieces and he had another pending case so he certainly had a motivation to try to work out some kind of a career in the but is i mean this i suppose is speculation but does that make him a career minor all certainly would if you think about what she used to impeach individuals at trial  had both been in custody in two peach county for some time that they just got into the same pot or something at that time i believe the annotation shows that curtis washington got into the sentencing pot as he called it the sentencing part on june twenty fourth want i don't know that the application reflects that he told him he would but to believe his testimony even at the trial was that he kept according to him he kept trying to talk the defendant out of it and it was according to his testimony the defendant was pushing him back and i believe the application suggests that curtis washington actually told him that he would he would help him do this the first thing argued any kind of harmless error in this case so to the extent it there's any kind of argument like that i would say that it was forfeited on behalf of the state but i believe these two over here orders provided the bulk of the state's evidence in this of one thing they could have done is again they could have provided further corroboration so that there would be a substantial basis for crediting purvis washington serious that they could have in fact in the same area as a protected party or who are talking to protected parties so that that's another thing that they could have provided for free simply by giving more information about the nature of the of the charges against him we have that found insufficient there was one and i'm sorry i don't recall the exact name of it but there was one from this district i think it was from that hamilton might have been people to hammer which was essentially it was i believe  an arson and it was based on affidavits from people who did not appear before the judge but there were three of them and they corroborated each other and one of them was basically an ordinary citizen so i guess my question was having several cases cited in i apologize for the lawsuit reference that was the wrong direction is there anything in any of these cases that say at minimum this must they just essentially look at the facts that were before them in particular case and say based on politics to tell of the circumstances here in some cases the officer shows up with the question by the by the issue of the judge who are there is several affidavits and actually this is not even an affidavit from curtis washington it's just statements by the officer but there are several affidavits that corroborate each other and and fifteen thousand dollars posted and there was a hearing set on such and such a date or if the bombing is going to be back given back to him in the following do you know that the judge didn't have bad information available to him while walking no one is th isn't available but the fifteen thousand dollars bond and the charge might be appealable on me to go along or something that the judge has access to so there is no indication that the judge considered it and i don't i and i actually don't know what information would be available at the time it was issued but it certainly is not reflected in the record that there was anything but the application considered an effect when the judge the trial judge ruled on this the only thing th trial judge considered ruling on the sufficiency of it was the application itself there was no argument made by the state that anything else had been presented to the to the issuing judge so it seems pretty clear from this record that i'm trying to  trying to understand what was presented to him what was available to the judge and it could be two different things you know as a sitting judge i remember i had access to information there are you walking in off the arguments on this motion the only discussion was what was in the application itself the prosecutor did not present anything to indicate that there was any information other than the application present judge have to say when he or she is making the ruling this or you or i take it to different notice in order for there to be recognized those magic words i think it has to be reflected that the information protection file that there wasn't done here it's something maybe a judge could do but it wasn't done in this case so this record reflects that the only thing that was done was the application was presented and based on the application the eavesdropped order was issued the b average video tape just hasn't been found but the state did indicate on the record that three of the four statements they were using to impeach the defendant were statements that had been suppressed by the trial judge and what the state did was now to show that whatever the defendant had said to detective pyrrhus was inconsistent with what he testified to with the state was showing was that when he spoke to detective heras he lied about what he had said to the other two individuals but that the state was showing dadt he lied on the record statements when he talked to detective here but nothing like a trial they were trying to present him as he's a liar he's basically he's a liar but they are statements that weren't inconsistent with his trial testimony to show or soon to be ex wife and that he wanted to do so again the information included specifically how he wanted this carried out and it was very specific he wanted to literally got person to pose as a delivery man bring roses in sugar in th reliability of the information i think i think that you are kind of part and parcel you want to think in terms of the nature of the sense that he was talking about what they want him to the police you don't know the answer to that but my thought is that i don't think it's necessarily an easy thing to take somebody on a path to then don't testify in front of a judge again i could be pretty incorrect on that but it seems to me that having made a request  what in particular do you believe was presented to you to counter you know i just sits in terrible horrible things i never wanted to countenance him to murder i think when you look at it and she was dead i think it's things like that again that are part of the surrounding circumstances of the offense so it's like you have a transcript where he's asking for more information when he's saying you know to fish for confirmation so again it's just it's an attempt to undermine his view of the surrounding circumstances corroborated here's here's an individual with very poor credibility as a motivation to come up with something and in fact i think the defense a large part of his defense at trial was this is not my idea this was curtis telling the truth when the defendant said he wanted his wife killed just the fact that he knows his ex wife's address is not sufficient to corroborate that his mr johnson really had this conversation and this about harmless error when the defendant spoke to rouse the detective the story oh he said ok look i'm going to talk to my lawyer i'm going to get some fine money back i'll be back i'll call you back and we'll will make the final arrangements and he never did call back so i think that again demonstrates how significant these audiotapes were to the state