now at this time on the court had for it was testimony that was allegedly given at the grand jury before the grand jury which snatching everything if the court should look at the case the rest happened sixty one he was asked what number he recognize he picked number of upside the sixty four sixty four th so at the bottom of the line and she went off with the with me steve pedant from he again responded from the part where where where is the testimony of just looking for the testimony that relates to that now put this together with the fact that you had numerous witnesses that the same of says they were looking for a middle aged lady with tread locks they arrest a wife of a police officer that has no prior  interaction with the law has four kids no history of allegedly shooting someone that's twenty five years younger than her there's no connection whatsoever during the deposition to repeat the aust if they could arrested the didn't have probable cause to know and the reason was this deal was interviewed he called the police he was one mile long he was interviewed even twenty four hours after the incident at the scene and he gave a description of the shooting which and at the very least fifty one suggests understanding that there's testimony maybe about it but it's just that he identified your client as someone who was in the park and please the court justice and appearing on behalf of the defendants in this case i think the best place for me to start is on page fifty three and fifty four of the record and if i may read the testimony to your honor's the question i want to take you back to the photo array that you were question about who did mr r identify at that photo right answer number five the female in the number five position veronica nikky question to say why he identified her yes where did he tell you that was the person that shot the boy rhino in the park and did he have an opportunity to review the portion of the photo array that you wrote down yes and at what point in connection with that did he sign the document after i filled out the part where i put in his name as an end address that he identified photo number five and also that i put down his response to my question and his response was they shot the boy rhino in the park i put down the incident number the date the time and i hand it to mr r so mr r signed it after you wrote the information on the sheet yes your honor the evidence yes there is no evidence no non speculative admissible evidence in this record that identification of the plaintiff in this case as the shooter did not occur at the photo or read the testimony that plaintiff is here relying on try to create an issue and should state repeatedly that this was a doctored photo as as a fact as though it was an admission is testimony that was given by the other officer who was asked t record through one forty five and if i if the if your honour's will allow me to summarize this testimony instead of reading the four pages from the record the question it's undisputed here that detective car when was the one who about that the clear testimony was the signature happened after all of that occurred in pages one one forty two thirty one forty five plaintiff's counsel is asking detective coward who was the other officer involved a series of questions about what he remembers from the photo away what did you see did you see the other officer write down this phrase and he repeatedly states over and over again i don't i don't remember i wasn't standing there effortlessness four years ago i don't know who wrote  after saying over and over and over again i don't remember plaintiff counsel's asks whether the speculative question that is objected to by counsel is it possible that the text of carmen filled in the statement later and dismissively that detective states anything is possible this is he's this is just an affirmation that he doesn't remember exactly what happened this sort of metaphysical speculative doubt there is out of context to manufacture an issue of fact based on this photo array based on the subsequent lineup based on the grand jury testimony there is no tribal issue of facts as to whether this identification occurred all of the arguments made by plaintiff's counsel are based on speculation i would like to the only other issue raised about probable cause but by plaintif is the difference in in hairstyle and because the officers here have qualified immunity the quick question for it to be determined on that issue is would no reasonable officer have thought that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff here because her hairstyle was different eleven days after the crime occurred and the answer is no hair style is a  characteristic we have here a positive identification by an eye and eyewitness which suffices to show probable cause i would like to briefly address the what happened at the end of the case here there is there is no there was no basis for recusal here whether something could have been done a little bit differently that's not the relevant question just whether someone would doubt the  partiality of the judge and certainly not here when this happened because time was of the essence it happened because plaintiff asked for reconsideration of a ruling that had been the law of the case for three years and the judge ruled in his favor which hardly shows  that she was biased against him it was noted on the on the record that exact same day at bottom the claim of prejudice from from the discovery of a grand jury minutes here is that it affirmed the grand jury minutes affirmative disproved plaintiff's theory of the case and but the grand jury minutes are what they what they are and an opportunity to keep out these grand jury minutes which affirmatively disprove plaintiff's theory of the case is not a recognized form of prejudice an opportunity to subvert the truth seeking function of trial these grand jury these grand jury minutes changed the context of the entire case whatever  reasonable inferences are determined based on context once you have these grand jury minutes that show that the eye witness in this clip case making it clear identification of the plaintiff here as as the person who was i d d at at the lineup and saying saying that yes that was the shooter in the park it's not reasonable based on the speculation in the in actually even if it could have been i don't know necessarily how it went i'm not sure there is anything wrong with a clerk you know calling the on about this issue and notating it simultaneously on the record could maybe both have been on the phone possibly but the issue short hand i'm asking whether their statements have subsequently and that appear not to be relevant or human a morning when you just absolutely not you're either interesting he no your honor we have we have do you are refusing to testify at the criminal trial in the record he does not state why his attorney state he states that he has a tremendous fear of testifying but certainly not his his grand jury testimony if your honour's are frying to the affidavits those affidavits have been so thoroughly debunked i don't see how they could possibly support material issue of fact here and they were directly contradicted by the grand jury testimony in those affidavits which the affidavit we're talking about was filled out by counsel prior to even meeting with and that affidavit said i have never ever said or connected to anyone ever the plaintiff here to this crime i only said it was in the park once you have the those were those were actually rejected by judge mouse way back at the beginning of this case but once you have the grand jury testimony showing those to be false they cannot create a material issue effect furthermore you have the issue that when the parties went to the correctional facility here and tried to depose the the eye witness and was asked was asked are these affidavits correct he responds i don't know and i refused to testify which for me is an essential repudiation of them and also indicates that he's never ever going to  appear in any was in the criminal trial he was held in contempt so he has a proven record of not appearing he said i'm not i will not testify i will not appear so i fail to see what on this record what evidence is going to go person in the park it's just being taken out of context to manufacture an issue of fact i think it's theory at this point seems to be well yes you are may have identified her before the grand jury but you know didn't before the end we can we can him he said yes he indicate that position he recognized someone yes that position was number five the problem here is that you no longer have to take a cowboy and handing over this for the rate the witness you have an entirely different statements saying that all he said was that he knew the perpetrator he needed a witness from the park you have an officer that was in the room when the father it was presented telling the court under oath that mr rickman only said he knew the not fit the description of the shooter you have numerous people giving the same officers the same description here arrest someone without dreadlocks what page was that h two fifty one and it's from the way here  is not about lying because the grand jury proceedings are secret we have the right to cross examine to be on that theory if he takes a stand you also have the right to cross examine officers on the circumstances but when you put all the