interview children victims that were citizens or sold their soul is to investigate actual abuse on children and that includes and have always included interviewing for potential did he he interviewed more than just the trial yet he interview family members in your view hughes and he didn't in the presence of the walking a police officer this was a waukegan investigation there's no doubt in my is it the heart of this defense is not only the duty to just gloves but also the question of whether or not there even was a corpus to let die of a crime in this case the law martina's that martinez was interviewing people in the presence of police officers wasn't the other tenants that there had been a discussion before going to the home that all the interviews would take place at the police department there was a so there was no conversation other than just a brief greeting well there was whatever martina says he said to him right you know marking this wasn't the place officer of the law what's the theory of the disability of this state and whether or not it once discovery defense counsel when you he's there in his investigation and preparation of the case i've tried many cases says here we always like to know what the uncomfortable phil finding out three days and with a trial that my client been telling the truth and back he had surprised by the ask it in that allow for an adequate opportunity to prepare for trial and didn't allow for american opportunity to investigate the newly disclosed  you know there are lots of definitions in there that are not provided anywhere in the statutory authority how do you deal with that standard because it is in theory difficult standard of course this but it is it is not an insurmountable standard then what police officers tell us oh people have said about the facts of this case and absent anything no matter how slight to borrow a phrase from another area of the law no matter how and in this case there was no plus soft evidence even if the jury says we don't believe her recantation there was no plus saw evidence if you ever have t don't you think there's some obligation of your police officer to question the d c if it was piecework or work ask something when there is potential defendant the same something people cannot contest that there was a discovery violation in th or granting a new trial here the trial judge allowing the defendant to question four witnesses involved in the taking of the defendant's statements he said that time anderson learned that most of them  put these officers and do you see a fast workers on the battery outside the presence of the jury and have their answers on the record the defense counsel declined that offer for their t completely taken me surprised at all to my trial strategy as well as my client has been trying to tell me all along you know i'm asking for a mistrial he believed it was trying to bring out bush and that he would have gone and done something different on the motion to surprise but the language that both defense counsel here today he continues use is that he might have been permitted to do something or it might have turned out differently  and i think because the officers and the a c of us were working so closely together in this case even even due to the lack of language understanding the had fled the country immediately or shortly thereafter making the statements and did not return until trial so until based on actually this testimony was almost all related to her testimony so the preparation be able to show pressure has is that to establish materiality you have to show that the gentile would have put this whole case in a different light and it does not do that here as far as anything that i didn't like a good listener in court found that the combination of the child's prior statement and the defendant's repudiated confession was overwhelming evidence of the offense at least not that one couch so in this case they're not challenging the victim's statements were improperly or were properly admitted under section of my fifteen ten as such it was substantive evidence of the offense heard description in those prior statements of the duration of the time frame the activities that t sergeant and furby that the evidence must tend to corroborate in order to use both the confession with the other evidence which here was the other statements and it's the people to support his conviction and there are any other questions have i think they happen when prosecutors don't prepare their cases i think a defense lawyers don't prepare their cases but when witnesses are not home months before trial but