that he had shot and killed clip grants and norman nelson neither made this assertion so long after the fact after both of them had affirmatively deny that they heard anything after the details have been published in the newspapers not until armstrong needed to deal from the prosecution not until rodman roh had been arrested and said that he had heard this alleged confession and had asked his partner in crime stan edwards and to say that he had heard it and to include him in the people who had for a benefit from prosecution and at that time after rodman row had had done that for the only time in six pretrial statements by armstrong and the second by edwards and both of them said that they had heard this confession alleged confession and that monroe was there the end that's fine start with armstrong maybe ok with armstrong the the decision of the montana supreme court is eroni us because not only did they imposed upon the defense a it could have made because the strongest evidence in your client's favor actually was in front of the jury that he had a cast on his arm that he was work that day and they and a strenuous cross examination of armstrong and given fox's bios i'm i guess i say have a hard time seeing how their extra information would have made any difference if you could talk about all the extra information there in turner the united states supreme court held that stated that where the evidence is is thin as it was in this case just the one more thing to get it over over the hump and hear what i don't see that that's what i'm ok i mean in theory but i just yes in this trial i don't see how could i put another way i find it amazing that they convicted but what difference would it have made i think it would i think it would have made a huge difference i mean since i've been working on this case i mean i will say my my thought is oh let me out if i could try this case it would be so much different but the fact of the matter is that there were lots of things to impeach armstrong but what gave him credibility was his mother's testimony that all he came to me and he felt so bad about this but what this would have done it not only would have been another nail in armstrong's credibility cough and it would have been a nail in susan fox's credibility coffin because it would either show that she was misrepresenting in this trial his he came to her and said was that he came to her and said that he had heard this but what he had wanted was to move and he was also interested in the crimestoppers reward money but then she reported to crimestoppers anonymously they later defense it is a theory that he's not only a liar a drunk and a manipulator and cetera but he's also now mentally incapable of doing that and he seems they would that would undermine his main theory due to impeach him because he's a liar and then also say that he's mentally incompetent well at the trial that that is not inconsistent with what the defense was arguing at trial at trial the defense asked him on cross examination in emphasize that he was he had been drinking all day that day they talked to edwards and about him being half half lit and they argued that in the closing statements so what they were not only relying on his lack of veracity and his willingness to lie to get what he wanted they were also relying on his ability to perceive and communicate this is part of the problem here that the notes sort of support his manipulation i mean the notes seem to so they don't demonstrate that he was incompetent you know and that's what and i think it's actually more likely that the notes and susan fox's testimony would be the more likely result of both of  those things would be that you would show that they were both were manipulative liars that they would lie to get what they wanted at any time in any place so to me that's more that they were planning that whole  that her in his sentencing hearing and him also for the purposes of getting what he wanted legally talk about the other county issue yes i think i actually got that going in thing that i like to know is that there was a joint task force right yes as we know anything about how it was structured how it worked well i think that the state's brief actually sets that out better than i did  and one thing that as i was preparing for this oral argument that we have not pointed out to the court before that is part of the record is that one of the investigating officers on this case brad parrish was a member of that task force and that you can find that at the excerpts of the record number five page four and to in the trial transcript at page five ninety one and six twenty seven i will go to the scientists piece right yes yes and wouldn't have to have been tony sanchez had any tendency to be violent so this would have been a new piece absolutely and also it was drug dealing there was some evidence that he was a minor drug he in fact  has he was allowed to testify falsely that he was bringing in personal use amounts for forklift grounds when mary left was clear what difference would that have made to his possible defendant were right i mean what mary leftish said was that he used to used private men to collect his debts and so if he didn't directly say that he was the one going that he would have been the one who beat up said barney salah way but that he had other people do it for him and he came off as this really nice guy but back to the should i return to the issue of the connection between the task force and i would like that it's seems to me i mean the government's theory seems to be that that the limitations on the the police the prosecutors responsibility for the is only for police who work in this case and i don't think at least as it's usually applied if this was a drug detective for this county the detectives would be responsible and highly words assigned to this case is that right they would they were and i and i were what i mean as as set out frankly in the state's brief the flathead county detectives working on this case specifically cause as i said specifically contacted the task force regarding me whether they had any information on cliff duran grant they searched the task force that searched rod mr rodriguez this trailer that was located on mr mccarthy's property that the task force had provided flatterer it county with information we regarding a mr winter that lake county  somebody from the lake county part of the task force had actually contacted the flathead county sheriff's flathead county part of this which must have included brett parrish and said the tony on grant's answering machine might be saul sanchez and gave him that he gave them the phone number so therefore that person knew enough about the case to know that accolade and that they had investigated mary le determined that sanchez was her up supplier has given significant information regarding sanchez and his operations and the amounts of drugs and about two pounds a month coming into montana and his violent collection techniques so what rule that state it's specifically it is the prosecutor's duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf in the case including the police it does not say from this investigative agency only and because i would say the this task these the lake county part of the task force was operating on their behalf because they called them they seem to be getting inside information and they call them  with critical information and they had more information yes and in fact the flat had became based on that information the flathead county detectives traveled to lake county and interviewed both sanchez although they didn't keep any records as to bring particular of their conversation with miss let ditch counsel you argue this same these same issues to the montana supreme court and they rejected your argument so her job isn't to look at a new at you argument it's to the chairman whether the montana supreme court's a malice was on reasonable and so what specifically sin in a man can a supreme court order where is this in the mud china supreme court it is all of that the portion of the montana supreme court's case that deals with this is in the first four pages of said it would it wouldn't have been it would have been in admissible but it would have been which is an incorrect factual determination because the evidence he could mr sanchez clearly could have been cross examined on the amounts of drugs that he was being and his collection techniques and they also gave this argument leave that evidence would have contradicted the chosen strategy i don't think that they made that argument on the sanchez material i think they only meant that different that was on the armstrong material so yes it's a supreme court opinion says that the relevant evidence concerning sanchez and the murders that was claimed to be withheld was the left in your view and then that's police report is that it well it's also the sanchez materials that the that the task force developed which where he's where he said oh i was i was bringing in two to four ounces a month and did you did you make that argument to the mounting a supreme court is that a new thing you're telling us now it was part of the record i'm not sure that i made that specific argument the the other case the outcome of the case sanchez was allowed to portray himself as this friendly migrant worker who has had his family who was in montana to pick cherries and that he really made his living making as a lager when really he was selling two pounds of methamphetamine a month and was using violent collection methods and the evidence there was evidence in this the discovery in this case and that was more developed at the evidence tree hearing zero the mexican mafia as much as twenty thousand dollars what did you testify about at trial mr sanchez mr sanchez testified that he was at the gate to mr grant property that he and his nephew are now though the other and the other piece of mary leaped to his testimony or evidence was that are in all do it with with him to collect debts but that they went to that they were at mr may please the court my name is mike well and stein and i'm an assistant attorney general for the state of montana mcgarvie is not entitled to any hippias relief under epa because he's failed to show that the montana supreme court's decision denying his brady claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of currently established federal law as determined by the united states supreme court mcgarvie is also failed to show the montessori courts factual terminations run reasonable in light of the evidence presented in state court proceedings now the first brady claim i'd like to deal with is the one involving sanchez and the courts that are sent to the much supreme court rules that  it's a little odd first of all the actual sentences the state was unaware well first of all i counted as part of the state but so especially because but second of all this there was a joint task force and the people in  county obviously know enough about this case to make this key telephone call saying that's taunting and i gather one of the people working on this case for a fat cat it was a member of the task force yesterday there is a joint task force here but the there's no went on there was no one from the flatted county sheriff's office who was a member of the joint task i was just told that there was was that wrong that she just said what is there is there is a member on this joint task force but there's no evidence in the record that that member was working on the left that sanchez drug aspect of the drug case that the montana supreme court gave other reasons as well including that the evidence and issue had what they called very little value to the defense because it was inadmissible speculative and only serve to attack sanchez character is that reasonable or unreasonable in your view that drug dealing it was that did that come out of the trial i trialed i think the jury is well aware that he was that he was and i drug dealer he said that he came he he just he sold a lot of drugs in montana and there was a lot of money made with those drugs the jury also knew that he carried a nine millimeter gun around with them the jury knew he was from yet come a washington there was testimony only suppose there are theory at trial or is the argument there could have been  argument made that was that was that was one of their points along with other ones that this mexican mafia which sanchez was part which they suggest sanchez was part of because he was from yakima washington which brings me back to the point the jury knew that sanchez was a drug dealer that he moved a lot of drugs in montana with a lot of money that he carried a gun i don't think it's a stretch for the jury to understand that he was there that day that he was there that day that a person who sells a lot of drugs could also be could also be violent i don't think this testimony from what they would really change the jury's mind is if we're going to saying nations police report because that's part of this whole sanchez question the second issue is police report was from november of two thousand homicides occurred in this case in july of two thousand and one the same nations police report could not have been part of this investigation or a fight a kind labeling or description of those notes and the other one was the the mother's testimony in another case what's your view of that that those issues well there's no there's no brady violation a montana supreme court found because they made those notes available and i think when you when you when you're under at play here you have to determine whether that finding is reasonable now mcgar the prosecutor statement somehow misled its counsel not three those notes but for that argument the stand mcgarvie has to show its counsel did not read those notes and the record indicates that counsel perhaps read the notes and i'm looking at are two this is the post conviction hearing from april twenty fifth two thousand and eleven page two fifty four this is the questioning of the garveys trial counsel greg jackson  varnay and jackson is asked but you don't recall specifically whether you looked at them meaning that jail notes and this is jackson sansar you know i'm assuming we did but i have no independent recollection at this time i mean i can't imagine we would not have i mean i always look at those things so the record indicates that council did look at those to tell us they were available to on so there is no brady violation regarding the armstrong jail notes now when you get to susan fox's testimony the montana supreme court in analyzing this did add this diligence and that's an unreasonable application of brady because there is no diligence requirement but the montana supreme court denied the brady claim regarding the fox fox's testimony and fox's sensing letter also materiality grounds holding and wetzel versus lambert would require photo just court to give that epic deference to that and the montana supreme court's determination that the evidence was not material is not reasonable now at the state post letter was important because it would have shown that armstrong was forgetful or he somehow made up that hearing mcgarvie recitation of the confession well if you look at it if you look at the core facts of the crime in each of armstrong's statements and his trial testimony they're consistent there's no memory problem with with armstrong there are consistent throughout and and armstrong's testimony is supported by the facts at the scene they back it up and perhaps most telling thing is that edwards and corroborates what armstrong said his father confession they're generally what they're what they're saying about the confession is generally the same fact that you have edwards and also hearing i miss that information not public information at a time never met when you were giving it my arms  when he said about me of the crime yes certain parts of it were public information but but other but others were where where for instance things that things that that that were not public he wrestled the gun away from him and that he shot grant grant when they were wrestling from the gun well you have come power resolution evan francis have in situ also two of the shots were close range which one when he's running away there's no gunpowder residue shots like that on nelson's body is the other thing other things that match up to the physical evidence of the fact that mcgarvie says that  evidence shows that the bullets used in this crime came from area thirty eight are three fifty seven just like just like the gun and that the same gun was used to kill both persons grant's gun and th disclosed that edward sim was charged with this fence i don't i just think i do still think the state thought it but wasn't exculpatory there's nothing in the record showing why and you know when you have a brady when you have a brady violation as if you have based on something more than speculation monroe and then put put put monroe at the scene heard about the statement at trial monroe edwards and testified that monroe wasn't there and the reason why he got why he went forward because his sister who he thinks highly of told to tell the truth i see my time is up thank you if there's no further questions i don't believe so thank you thank your honour's several points parish was one of the flight had county investigators who went to lake county to interview sanchez and like to judge they didn't keep any records of the interview  church with out the information on sanchez and the defense counsel didn't have a factual basis to cross examine him well so that's my question is was the point of the sanchez concern a that he was lying about what he saw why did testify or be that he he could have been more effectively set up as an alternative  came in then he had threatened his wife and and he was a bigger drug dealer than he said and he used violent means to collect and in fact that  mother talking about how he was joking about barney cell away who ended up in the hospital he took he had previously said i'm going to get my money from barney one way or the other and that barney the next day ends up in the hospital and then he's joking about trying to miss a ball if if you have if you were able to cross examine him and say mr sanchez you've used violent means to collect money and he says oh no i would never you know if i have about dead i don't worry about it you say what about these things you said about barney cell away and you can could bring in both of those witnesses and witnesses then if he denied it through impeach him