circuit as well although not explicitly discussing brecht it has after backed up by just the gig leo or the need to reason more likelihood standard when the prosecutor fails to traditional or non disclosure brady claims does not apply the back test they apply the probability that the result would have been different test there is really no reason here why court should impose the near mr haskell when the shots were fired but then after the shots were higher fired and people were leaving the bar he saw mr haskell with the gun and he went with him out the door but i would say that now this is testimony one of the court gave an accompli three or four years after the shooting it could have been the gun but there was no definitive link between the gun that was found in the area three or four years later and the guns that were used in the shooting itself that there was to say it was the same type of everything that was feared that ms levy testified to that was not true in or in some way to the prosecution's favor every single rider would be minimized her potential criminal exposure her past criminal history and also any potential could show that this is  respect to mr hayes when did he know that ms blue was with respect to your universal county not telling the truth well he was he was aware of her mercer county charges ah there was contact with mercer county as a court is aware prior to the trial so he was aware said she's not a liar at least not about what happened here so i think that he was cashing out in terms of the overall totality of the evidence that was presented wayne made his closing argument to the jury b everything else that we have here he said that of course not it's not a law she's not a liar he's not about what happened here that means i'm telling you the jury that she's only truth and that that's the classic belge is it not well i think he's ducking for sure what the answer to that is you're going to get back explain it this way she was asked by attorney hayes whether or not she was going to get any consideration for testimony when he asked that question she seem to be confused by the question to some degree situation where was she getting in terms of mercer county insane to her cooperation she wasn't getting any charges dropped she wasn't getting a specific recommendation of a sentence that you're going to receive in return for cooperation the most that was going to happen is that it was going to be made known to the mr county judge that she had cooperated nothing more so from her perspective she was not getting something hands on i this is not an attorney this is not somebody who is that is and why were these all  was going on the discussions going on with mercer county as she is hopeful of getting something and he knew it well he wrote a letter later on when you were letter december which indicated that she was aware she was her credibility is already been attacked during the course of trial turning more who is the defense counsel in this case had questioned her credibility question her motive for coming forward challenge the credibility  and that baggage came out in trial and this would have only added to it in another bases that are already come out at trial that when she answered that she wasn't getting any kind of quid pro quo with regard to her testimony she said no and that one person who said that you know she was present right there saw what happened and purportedly as far as the jurors can sort of that there's no problem with her and yet y could have affected the judgment of the jury then you've got a major problem what you got are you for is a somehow all there is added on to that the broadcast as to whether they're a judge has grave doubts that whether there was actually any injurious effect on the jurors or that sort of but sleep burden on the other side but we know that for br best not necessarily the case and the question is were crucial testimony arguably kroto testimony that the prosecutor knew about and vouched about why isn't that every bit as