actually innocent that she spent seventeen years separated from her children wrongly imprisoned for a murder she did not commit it is undisputed that essentially the only evidence used to fight to wrongly convict or it was the false claim by june is someone whose word you should use to put someone else in prison for life and the response that laura patti gave her the worst possible response you could get to that question response was this is the biggest liar i have ever met in my life and i don't believe a word she says and it is undisputed that marcella when knew that she had to risk report that information to the district attorney and she never get those facts establish a brady violation under case after case after case from this court and the supreme court there is no reasonable dispute that a law enforcement officer who fails with the least there's no reasonable dispute about that there is no reasonable dispute that the evidence that issue in this case the impeachment evidence of his reputation and opinion evidence from officer paddy that paddy should not be believed is the kind of material evidence that causes a brady violation when it is not disclosed again we cited case after case after case the law is very clear that particularly in a case like this where the  was one key witness any impeachment evidence is in almost inevitably material brady brady information that has to be disclosed and in fact when herself did not dispute this and when asked a deposition she was clear she understood if she heard from anyone he was a liar she had to tell that to the da her defense is that what officer paddy says happened didn't actually happen that's a factual question that has to be decided by the jury that is not but there's no dispute that she understood very well that if she got information she had to disclose it and so that this court reviewing de novo whether there is a basis for a brady crime the answer is is crystal clear under both the facts and the law in addition on the facts for the intent question which is clearly a fact question we cited in addition to defendant wins own admission that she understood that she had to turn this over tons of facts about her practice of generally recording every statement that was made to her we have admissible testimony from an expert which is another issue here  the court wrongly excluded it the police practices expert explaining what a reasonable police officer would know and routinely do with information like this during an investigation he talked about the training that you receive as a police officer which again when does not really dispute which is if someone's important enough to contact an investigation is important enough to write it down then you need to include in the murder book you need to pass it along to the da none of this is really in qualified immunity question also not in dispute this is not unreasonable dispute this court specifically addressed exactly this question in both tennis and and in korea and the defendants don't really even attempt to distinguish those binding cases there's no question in in korea specifically says not only was the brady duty clearly established decades before this case but the duty to disclose impeachment evidence in particular was clearly established again at least as i believe one hundred seventy eight  that's the those are the the main issues for the summary judgment decision there's two additional small issues as a little too there's the question of the admissibility of the police practices expert which as it was with in a footnote below it's an abuse of discretion standard but the applying the wrong law is per se an abuse of discretion there's no real dispute that the what the district court said the law was which is that you can't consider a police practices expert on reasonable reason illness on summary judgment is just not the law that's a dealing with a different situation when they were trying to use an expert opinion on its own to establish an reasonableness as a matter of  excessive force case which is a legal question that has nothing to do with whether a place practices expert can help establish what a police officer as a matter of fact would know which is then circumstantial evidence used to establish the factual question of whether suppression was intentional or at least deliberately indifferent or with reckless disregard and again we cited you know many cases recognizing that of course that kind of expert testimony is admissible and then the final issue is the familial association which again there's no question raised in the briefing that that's just derivative if we win on summary judgment no one is arguing we don't have also good morning calvin how from marcella when i don't think there's any dispute about the relevant legal standards the fact that the june patty's sister believe that she was a liar is impeachment evidence that would assist the defendant in their case so we certainly all agree on that there are two points at which we depart one is whether the information from june paddy was material and by that we have to determine whether it would have affected the trial in the words of the supreme court last year in the turner case information is material if when there if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed the result of the proceeding would have been different in that case the court decided right doesn't that take this to see wishes from turner it just things is from turner but it doesn't make the evidence material because there was a lot of evidence with regard to the truthfulness of june patty that was available evidence my weight impeachment could have been more powerful and that well first a couple things about the sister her testimony has to do apparently with things that happened in childhood she did not have much contact with her in the years before the murder happened that's involved in this case it's also clear from her deposition testimony that she was not familiar with the specifics of her interaction with other law enforcement agencies she had never been present when she was disclosing information and she knew nothing at all about the homicide investigation in this case so what stronger evidence would there be well there are at least two things that are much stronger one is the rap sheet that june patti had which disclosed convictions twice for forgery and once for a person to go back but you just said if the stay may have been turned over what you just said doesn't really go to whether or not the statement should have been turned over the statement should have turned been turned over that's not a question the issue is whether it's material in the sense that we don't have confidence in the result of the criminal you're what you're arguing boils down to is that because there was other bad stuff about this witness that this bad stuff was just more bad stuff but there was still plenty of bad stuff essentially correct and the other bands stuff was more convincing than a sister talking about her interactions with her sister many years earlier it dealt with convictions for having committed crimes and then there's also the letter that patty herself sent to the district very in which she admitting that she had given a false name to a police officer so those and then at trial she admitted that she had not told the whole truth under oath at the preliminary hearing well what was the new evidence between i mean we know that the plaintiff has been exonerated now since so what was the new evidence between the trial and the exoneration by the district attorney's office what would what change the opinion on this i'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the exonerate me seems like the only thing that changed was the fact that the sister who is the police officer came forward and said this person just an incredible liar was there anything else in between well i say i'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the exoneration process but i don't think the fact that this estate came forward and said she's a liar is the whole explanation was seems pretty i mean it's a pretty big jump from going from probable cause to believe someone committed a crime to convincing a jury they committed a crime to she didn't do it and so something changed in the middle and the only thing that jumped out of me is the fact that it was the sister knew all along what a who the police officer knew what a liar this person was so was there another thing that kind of fell out of the sky that changed the dynamics here are not familiar with anything else but again that we are not disputing the that this was a key witness may be critical witness in the people securing the conviction against miss bell and so the only quibble that you have is well the jury already had some impeachment information that demonstrates the witness was a liar so this new additional information from her sister who grew up with her saying that disregard everything she says because she's always been a liar and will always be a liar but that wouldn't have changed  quibbles the correct word what i'm saying is the sister's evidence is very weak my sister's a liar but if you look at the rest of those she doesn't have any specifics and furthermore she said that detective when was correct and or logical was her word in concluding that you and patty was telling the truth because a lot of details so the the power of her challenge the truthfulness of you but for you to prevail in this on this appeal we have to be convinced that no reasonable juror would have found that this evidence would have made any difference correct because  to win you have to convince us that no reasonable juror would consider this additional information from the sister to be material programs and that's where that is our position then let me just say one thing about  deputy district attorney who said that she did not believe that this even qualified as brady material so i don't think that she would have concluded that she was not going to go forward with the prosecution because she said she didn't consider it something that would need to be turned over now that's not determine whether it in fact should have been turned over or not but in terms of whether there would have a prosecution there certainly would have been so i just wanted to add a word about  qualified immunity there's no question that the were quire meant that a police officer turned over brady material to the da and the possibility of liability if the police officer not was firmly established long before the facts of this case but the question of qualified immunity is also whether a reasonable police officer infective wins situation would have felt that she was violating the law by not turning the information over and as to that as to the state of mind that when have we have her testimony that she understood what the brady obligations for we also know that she turned over a lot of negative information a but he also say that she would have turned this information over but that she's disputing that it happened at all but if it happened she would have turned it over and i guess that's correct and which puts us in a strange position in terms of trying to identify her state of mind so that we don't have to really isn't and objective test when there are reasonable police officer yes yes answer direct and so we don't have to position would have done so the fact that she said she would have turned it over doesn't and that particular issue it comes back to whether reasonable officer would have considered that to be something that was material to the prosecution and as to that again we say that it's not because there was much more powerful impeachment evidence that was in fact present at the trial including the witnesses own testimony that she was less than to answer a few of the questions or address a few of the things my opposing counsel just raised first more of how he did not say that her information that she knew was only from many years earlier in fact if you look at her it's only a few pages in the record i think it's e r nine sixty three to sixty six that's her deposition testimony on this she makes very clear that she was aware of a number of false reports that you and patty had made around that time period to the police department the same time she was well aware of that that was part of the basis she did she said she was not personally in the room at the time that you and having made the false reports but she was well aware of what was happening she was involved a number of them had been false accusations against her personally and there was also  already been a determination by the torrance police department the same place where laura patty worked five years earlier that june patty was an unreliable informant that in the record at ten ninety one to ninety four on the answer the question about what it was that caused ms mellons conviction to be vacated it was the information coming forward from officer patty and then the additional information that she knew about this clear that officer patty some of what she knew about some of which came out in looking into the long history of gin patty's interactions with law enforcement there's a long memo at ten seventy five to eighty three detailing the los angeles district attorney's investigation into the many many many instances in which jane patty had given false information to law enforcement both before many of which were before susan mellons wrongful conviction but some of which were after in terms of what was known to the either the district attorney or the defense attorney and whether that was sufficient to impeach june patti at trial well obviously it wasn't sufficient to impeach him patty at trial because that was the only evidence offered against susan mellon and again the case l clear on this if there is suppressed impeachment information the fact that additional information was known and used obviously unsuccessfully does not make the suppressed information not brady material and i would be a horrible specifics of what actually was known and what was disclosed and again this is the letter that they're talking about there's no question that the defendant when did not disclose any of this information to the d a what happened was several months before trial june patty happened to send a letter to the district attorney attempting to get a favor from the da in you know some dealing with this minor matter that she had in exchange for her testimony and she raised if this is in the record at thirteen thirty eight to forty one and she's saying i have a traffic ticket and my sister is is saying she might have me arrested on a warrant on this traffic ticket and she's accusing me of something i didn't do it and i promise i didn't do it with letter that explains that nothing  reputation in the law enforcement community for providing false information is another grounds for admissible evidence that would have and could have come in under the california evidence code and is known as trial then if you look at the response of  d a sent to jim patty which is in the record it thirteen forty two that's a one page letter and all it says is you can't be i'm letting you know that you can't be arrested because of the special morant that you're coming in on you can't be arrested on any when you come and work under the subpoena when you come in to testify at trial so there's an indication from all of this and this is what they call knows about that there's bad blood which is what she describes what she says she didn't have to turn over let's find the could find marcello when was told which is that this is the biggest liar i've ever met in my life that's a admissible evidence that needed to be disclosed that was not turned over on the qualified immunity question and korea specifically deals with this it's binding authority on this court and says that there is no qualified immunity for this question it's answer that question there's no they're not even attempting to distinguish it goes into a lot of detail tennyson does the same thing  about on the margins if it's brady material which they're agreeing it is and there's no qualified immunity because it was well established decades ago that police officers knew that they had an obligation to disclose brady material to the district attorney  and i agree that materiality is this is a summary judgment case in order to find against and i actually think in this case given the case law you could find materiality as a matter of law if you look at the  the cases especially a number of habeas cases decided under the at the standard finding that no reasonable court could find in a case where it says it's as an undisputed here is a single witness case suppressed impeachment evidence you could find that there's no reasonable way to find that that's not material that's certainly a reasonable jury could find that it is material which is all that we need to be able to go to trial on that