activities with a number of young women but he was only convicted of one felony which involved digital penetration of the woman known as now this was the critical allegation in the l crazy now at trial it was even more critical because there were a number of facts one goes that share the testimony of s g t at the trial as to digital penetration was very confused interview she was asked about penetration a number of times and specifically denied penetration despite being pressed on this point find us there was then a third interview which was also introduced at trial we've was not reported it took place that they have later and that was the interview at which she said for the first time there was digital penetration in other words the first time she had told anyone that he allegation was that he had been told by the by the five nice girls including s g that they had been threatened with prosecution if they would not testify or they would not give the police something to use against your ear now the first question i think your honour's need to address is is this brady material and i think you need to distinguish between the reasoning the judge or not necessarily suppressed by the prosecution it could be suppressed by police not known the prosecution and inadvertently suppressed by the prosecution which is the case here we have no proof or evidence that there is anything to the contrary  impeaching any further in a related argument you believe there was not prejudicial walk well basically judge ford's point of view is so while he really didn't focus on have to keep it all the girls he said everybody knew they were lying they lied a lot they lied because they many of them initially denied it may happen and later said it was true so since everybody knows they're liars what does it matter if there was one more reason or a reason for witnesses to lock because after all everybody knew there were lockers in a related argument what he said is is that as to  he the prosecutor would have wanted to introduce evidence she didn't threaten with prosecution by the police because that might explain to the jury why she eventually came forward with this store  i believe these are kind of unique arguments generally speaking i don't think anyone would believe that being threatened with prosecution is a fact which favors the prosecution usually being threatened with prosecution if one doesn't say certain things or how a particular story or part of the prosecution is material which the defense was to have in fact your facts and introducing often does introduce evidence for example pending cases and the unrelated cases in which no promises have been made but the thought is that the witness is under unspoken or so little pressure to favor the the s g between the second and third interviews somehow heard about the other girls the fact that he should have known before the second interview not between the second and the third and therefore she was jealous was mad at her macross and decided i'm not going to shield him any more i'm going to come forward with a whole story that argument was weak to begin with it was ridiculed by the prosecution rightly so bought had there been another motive to suggest that she had been threatened with prosecution her complexion of the case wouldn't change on the key issue of whether s g was telling the truth about the penetration and that is the absolutely key issue in the case so i don't believe that judge orders arguments hold water in this respect judge for it also doesn't hurt although the this is not prototype by the fact that this evidence was hearsay or in this at all but is judge argument their argument here is that the affidavit is not good enough because the code gates did not know it's true that he did not know precisely when the threats were made he just knew they were made at some point at some point prior to trial i would suggest that this is not a good reason to deny leave to file and that's all th then one day later and i reported interview she changes now the fact that the interview this thirty interviews i report is also important because we cannot know precisely what was sad and it may well then that the threat was made during the third interview precisely at the point when asked he changes her story from no penetration to penetration there are five providing crucial evidence to convict  your ear because the state also makes another argument which i'm not trying to stand for what has to do with the fact that in her initial statements she had provided enough or possibly criminal sexual abuse or aggravate from a sexual abuse iris make your own interpretation so again there's no question that the second interview here is a series of denials of penetration now as to  that before and we asked for it without saying anything he denied it so we went with the affidavits and what we had we think that was sufficient i said grantley now once leave is granted there will be additional issues and possibly to shell discovery and whether we will make this claim is something that only the future or ols we don't know what the girls will say about it now we don't know what investigator up in the so vast number of ideas which raise concerns on our part i mean one was the idea that somehow yury army was benefiting from voluntarily returning and thereby warning of  discovery could involve perhaps maybe take the deposition of tough men and ask her under oath whether or not she made these threats that are alleged in this new code against affidavit so that is a possibility for how this could have been resolved their claim that hoffman had made any threats to s g and to her that that particular person between that one day maybe two days span between the second and third interviews and the reply the sort of retreat say well it was certainly made before trial well that doesn't help explain why s g changed her story to serve like what was the defense cast as sort of like a series of adamant in her or her factional area touching and then she sort of says well no not yet but outside so she said yes conflicting her own answer and she's refusing to give a direct did not  perhaps this this woman here who is holding something back and says that's not understandable think she's fourteen years old now turned fifteen maybe dealing with a very sensitive topic and something that maybe that as you thought was known to the police officer business what happened between her and your apostle and so there are reasons why she would withhold that other then this idea that somehow she was threatened to be charged as a topless and just basic question as accomplice to consumption that was going on after with other girls the only other girls after she'd already broken up with your half so the theory that somehow she'd be theory that she would be impeach message from a few her sister the police know everything there's no bother why so she goes right back into the child advocacy center and she says i'd like to be truthful with you now and she told the police everything she was prepared to say  that points well there's no use them protecting him anymore but it's obvious that she was trying to protect yuri she didn't want him to be incriminated based on anything she had to say and reluctantly then started disclosing the nature of their relationship as a relationship that wasn't appropriate because of this a fourteen year old girl the time and a teacher at her school so essentially because her motive is to protect your her from prosecution not a motive to lie to protect herself from her own prosecution so if she were coerced to testify against him then it would merely further the argument that she was really trying to protect him and in fact now coming forward to tell the truth with the the fact that the thread prosecution was simply to get her to overcome her reluctance to incriminate the defendant was somebody she was trying to protect earlier and so there is nothing here to connect up the allegation of ford was right and the prosecution would have been chomping at the bit to introduce evidence that she had been threatened with prosecution again i think that is there is somewhat  i frankly don't understand that position the first question to be answered is was the very information available before the first to  some discovery motions but it made in baden that here in the proceedings there and the court sad no there would have not been a basis to get discovered and we couldn't have gotten discovery during the first  that said i've got a limited period of time i file my first post conviction petition then i meet up with this mope in jail and this is what he tells me and in addition to that it's difficult to get in contact with these other individuals who could confirm what he's saying and then have the opportunity to get an affidavit from him later perhaps but this is the assertion in this is a critical piece of evidence because it soon