had score prior convictions all within the year of the trial and all four admissible as kinds of dishonesty two for lying to police officers the jury also did not know that the state began meeting with  abilities is the difference between conviction and hung jury has determinative of guilt or innocence therefore any additional and she change evidence to his testimony parker confessed to him behind and yeah come on motel on the outside sometime around the first week of april so when does the time between from ten me is to thirty two hours in which that confession could have taken place to a reasonable jury co newspaper so the jury was presented with a ten day window and not presenting with the fact that mr davies would have been behind bars for nine and attending so was actually the jury to determine whether or not mr when he was lying about that first confession confession also never happened the third reason why the evidence is material in this case is that because it undermines the caliber of the state's investigation and police the credibility of individual officers the state withheld the fact out from behind bars and facing a steep charge of a twenty thousand dollars bail just like his when this was the clown robbery investigator who told the victim i think i know who did it from this withheld evidence a new not that doesn't answer my question my question is the decision to give the defendant a deal rests with the prosecutor not with the investigator and the decision is there any evidence evidence and then one by one state's mr parker fails to show actual stansell prejudice the commissioner just so feeling just right there that there was a probable cause hearing failing to save even the fact that it's believed detective witnesses there are however there are two entirely different jury panel in the first trial as the court is well aware the same evidence can hit different jurors differently and you have twelve entirely different jurors each of the two that sort of that's correct and despite that fact the jury found ms brown's testimony we would assume persuasive and they also sound mr a bundy's testimony also persuasive despite the fact that he was heavily washington about the state courts decisions now the washroom supreme court commissioner's purpose in making his decisions regarding rulings as to review this is from whether the full court should hear the case just consequently whether he's reviewing incorrect standard so what do you do about that well if your honor is referring to the actual president standard yes we're talking apples and oranges especially the actual president standard his or standard which is required for a petition or to obtain collateral relief in state court that's just that's the burden of proof that they bear in state court it doesn't mean that the decision requiring a state court collateral petitioner to though let me just ask you this if if the brady rule is that you don't have to show actual presidents but you have some reasonable probability that it might have come out different if that's the brady rule which is a federal rule and they don't apply than most of the other kinds of errors that are that come up on either direct or he is for review and if it requires effect a lesser standard then why when you say that it's ok for the washington supreme court to impose a higher standard what  in the second column is the burden of proof that he has to show in state court for collateral relief to get relief under state law correct for a state personal restraint position that doesn't make that supreme court commissioner's decision law you have made here is the federal standard and i understand you saying that that's the state's standard but the state standard is higher so you have taken the materiality  taking so you know it can't run around the issue and if the last reasoned decision is the court of appeals decision that's one thing but if you're relying on that washington supreme court which seems to me a brief it seems to me that's another issue perhaps i went with the tornado you want to tell us now which if you want to rely on both you know i agree i mean i just seems to me generally that this guy was impeached six months sideways but this little chart  at least somewhat aluminum eating because it casts down on his ability to have made one of the confessions what is what is your position because the difference between just saying ok the guy's a liar and the confession would have been physically impossible so we need to figure out whether he's a liar confession with a specificity even though i know this as a liar i may have to discount it some but then if somebody said yeah but actually there was no way he could have even made the confession you testified sure because he w already he wasn't even the same physical proximity that seems to be a little bit different to me that it does or doesn't result in a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different ok so that got you back to the brady yes given the abundance well if he was in jail the entire time it made it physically impossible to refer to see the confession i suppose yes hypothetically but that's not the reality that's not the facts of the canal we've got thirty two hours you know i see you in court today anyway a liar but if in fact you've never been in the state of washington that's just seems to be a lot easier to make sure to verify that i'm a liar other than just how i'm testifying so i mean i think that's that's really what i was trying to get to and probably wasn't very articulate in giving that but i think it was if there is potentially an objective now it still needs to be factored into the brady standard that you mention and i don't know you know exactly where that will come out but i think we'll hear we've kind of gone over your time  criminology by knowing about one of the convictions yes well and there's that is about one of the convictions that wasn't disclosed or you get there through some convictions which go into you know what mr rosen was talking about your general credibility in which the guy had very little so it was this argument made that it would be physically impossible to have made the conviction i mean the left for the the temp thirty that's fairly specific give the site reference for when he allegedly heard the second confession yes we have  talking to someone is different and hearing a confession need to find it or you know and i'm would be quite disturbed if i were to find that this chronology doesn't actually represent with the record states still rather than taking your time now the clerk has little pieces of paper for supplemental submissions and if you can give us the record should and for the fact that there was a confession at center at ten thirty or on june fourteenth and then also provide mr rosen a copy of that location number as well