had been dismissed from the roberts police department terminations the officers testimony were sufficient but she didn't have a complete picture and she didn't have the evidence in the case and says we have it here now and are we supposed to have it here a complete picture i  burden to show us that there's nothing in that report that would suggest that the other sergeant was after the short answer no your honor and the reason for that is twofold counsel rose completely barred from asking for real questions on an issue that was brought up during direct examination there is no state can say that would suggest that the state can ask a question race a topic during direct examination and then a follow saying one officer lie about his terminations from this department here or four air god this area is the same thing that's really all you have is that a lawyer saying well you know the other guy must to potential issues their groceries or was there merely to fabricate the testimony the sale in the first place and i think it's clear that this is a very small community we're talking about fifty five hundred people in robinson a very small  to to be impounded for the now the question was asked on direct examination when you were tired of are you are you still working trial counsel then tried to get internet information during cross examination state objection in the trial court same objection that question was made specifically the certainly the defendant does have a constitutional rights to cross examination however the evidence offered to repeat must reason in friends that the witness has something to gain or lose in the evidence or the information can't be remote can't be uncertain it must being found incredible that is remote that is uncertain that is not information that is director positive and the trial would rule appropriately in this situation as far as the state winning the jury during a at the people opened the door is really disingenuous because that certainly wasn't the case and furthermore it will play out during cross examination of robinson they she confirmed that he had been retired because he was asked and he said i i retired i retired from robbins responded certainly he was no allowed to go further into that but he did confirm that he had been retired which is the difference between  officer to file a complaint against absolutely during opening statements defense counsel actually made that argument defense counsel argued that recently that evidence will show that grayson was trying need it from robbins police department that he had an regards to robinson there was nothing and there has to be there in order to be well to get to that second stat and even to review in camera the personnel file or whatever other documents and that wasn't the case here certainly that was the case information that was material that could potentially change the outcome of the trial quote it is doing now that there was really nothing like that there was no evidence presented in that case it would have suggested that there was relevance to the  had made similar sexual abuse allegations against another individual in the but they're also worlds that that would have been material information and relevant to that could possibly change the outcome of the case and again as you're an appointed insane and in both cases that was all done before trial and there certainly was information that was presented to the keeping a head in the trial isn't there a reason that you're supposed to object to something in time make your offer proof and then eventually in your if the judge made a mistake in denying this inquiry or this lack the court can then correct itself they are off the most important thing is we're getting now we're here and aren't we supposed to be able to look at something and see whether or not there is actually an error how can we see if there's an error we don't have that document ourselves as you know we did on there absolutely could have been enough for proof in this case but there wasn't and i submit that there wasn't because there was  order for production examination of the federal instant trial court's obligation to ensure confidence in the outcome of the criminal trial refusing to examine to be relevant documents does not further that they're investing ten minutes or less and in camera inspection would have made this a imitation of cross examination the defense has the rights to cross examine on a topic that was raised during direct examination and that the court needs to serious questions needed to observe the demeanor of the witness who is answering these are uncomfortable questions to make credibility determination that specifically in our opinion warrants reverser for a trial not now before so our writers should at least a new trial the second issue is the introduction of these documents the state seems to suggest that so