tragic story also provides an opportunity for this court here to the intersection of forensics and process she's become the symbol of government corruption but not necessarily corruption that is grounded in dollars and cents as often is the case but corruption small stream of the any do good situation only of knowing with the iceberg and we started filing papers and i face it that way because the original papers basically just said hey this a problem we may want to refocus then we moved to take a little different because the question is whether after all the time he spent with me and the time he spent with his prior attorney he thought that a trial would be a useful exercise and he only had that red substance in his possession for a few seconds and it was a tiny tiny little bit of contraband material but the government's entire case that's the certificate of winchell complaining those two banks came out on a discreet spot on the right from that stockpile they were all the bags held be in evidence which were never the explaining either he is guilty admission or at least saying that he if he'd known of all these facts he would not have pled guilty he cora's in the early burly of something new i was here at this high court but i was the only person that had actually knowledge i testified to in the form of an affidavit i said on the record i will be a witness no one chose to put me on the stand i didn't think it was necessary none the less mr the heart of mr maritz claim was that he could establish that his claim was involuntary and although for r is a twenty to fifty five case in other less is informative with respect to mr maritz claim of involuntary i asked could you could could the prosecution health successfully prosecuted this case with were lying in some manner on some testing if i understand the question if it goes to perhaps mr wilkins argument that because the drugs all of the drugs were in the hidden lab at some point they were all tainted i just don't understand how if how the prosecution would h prosecuted this case of could have prosecuted it to get a guilty verdict ok a well first of all the law does not actually require a chemical tast to prove a truck conviction and in this case if there aside from the students test of mr merit skill so you could say the undercover officer asked for cocaine and a white substance was then delivered to him field tested as such represent on well i correct that because honestly i don't think them backward establishes that the undercover officer asked for cocaine but the evidence shows that mr miller was in an area that was known for drug dealing he knew from the person he described as his poor way mr wilkins who at the time of his arrest an additional thirty x in his possession after they were arrested both defendants acted with a guilty conscience mr difference whether the substance was heroin or cocaine it would not make a difference to for the charge in this case with should not truck charge a particular quantity of drugs the government chain of custody somehow i wrote liable but the evidence the un contradicted evidence in the case is that most the majority of the bags it mincer will come to the session had never been opened and given the standard that we have a fair and just reason and given that we're trying to decide has the prosecution's case fundamentally changed and would he have still pled guilty what's the harm of just letting him and if your case is still a decent case and he knowing now would still voluntarily plead guilty he will and if he doesn't he won't what's the harm well i think i have two responses to that for you know very institutional particularly egregious misconduct on the part of the government and that let me ask you don't we have that if we consider her to be a number of the prosecution team now we don't have her for a procedures when the government agent knows that's faults you're saying that shouldn't worry us in this conduct enough to set aside a plea the other requirements for united states and doesn't come at all with in the terms that the supreme court used to define misrepresentation in brady versus united states that we think that the rule would would run afoul of destabilization comes from the creatures misconduct which fortunately we all recognize to be relatively rare would provide this court a teaching moment an opportunity to stabilize an