taken for a long time here at this this case stems from a murder conviction in one nine hundred seventy which this court affirmed in one nine hundred seventy five for all intents and purposes not a whole lot happened from one nine hundred seventy five until april of two thousand and sixteen when the defendant filed a motion for the appointment of of a special prosecutor and that motion stems from a request that the defendant made to declined to act further upon it therefore that prompted the defendant to file a motion for the appointment of a special prosecutor to have the state attorney removed and have somebody else investigate his claims that motion was granted by the trial attorney but there was no pending matter there was no pending case or motion this case was have been dormant for fifteen years and all of a sudden the defendant filed a motion to to appoint a special prosecutor where and our response to that is for what purpose to investigate based on your random claims which you also raised in the criminal case so our issue of the trial judge is why didn't why did you allow this case to proceed bring issues regarding the the evidence that the defendant has found in this present and so that they claim would establish their client's innocence and that because that already exists there's really two thousand and sixteen before that date you could request the point of a special prosecutor based on or if that person was interested in the matter that's not the case anymore it has to be an actual conflict of interest and the trial judge in his discussions in granting the defendant's motion for the point of a special prosecutor he said quote get out hard time understanding and hope the conflict in this  case and the conflict in this case of a as alleged by the defendant boils down to a relationship between a current kuria county state's attorney and one of the prosecutors in the case in one thousand seven hundred had ended up in defendant's conviction specifically all he did for him when he got elected to his current position if this is all the defendant intended was created this conflict of interest and again that the detail judge in orton used in a room is special prosecutor that people would submit their transparency and that is kind of akin to the appearance of impropriety which again starting on january first two thousand and sixteen is no longer the basis to have a special prosecutor appointed so the judge was wrong in that case and didn't actually find a conflict of interest in a couple of subsequent rulings on the people's motion to reconsider in the people's motion to say he mentions that he found a conflict in a natural conflict but i think if if you read the transcript from his granting of the emotional point special prosecutor in the order and the actual order there's no mention that he actually found an actual conflict and the people it was not that that's a critical component in this case right now and that brings me to my for third and final point is whether there was an actual conflict to be found that people submit again that there isn't being again all the all we have here is the allegation that that the state's attorney didn't conduct a proper investigation and he was incapable of conducting such investigation because he has some former relationship to the former because some threat of a personal and professional relationship with the former prosecutor that tried the case to convict the defendant i will submit that's just not an actual conflict there's nothing based on the relationship was not based on the evidence presented this was but the fact that he could even consider a conflict here within his base this is completely arbitrary again it's we're talking about a relationship between two men and that th just can't change everything that the state's attorney does especially without any actual proof or evidence that that relationship was the reason that you did the crime to now proceed with the defendant's request for an investigation faith and belief sustained him and powered his fight to prove his innocence decade after decade after decade after decade this court seeking to say that if the border but a one to this it like to read that you know of course from katherine dors two ways to make sure that the opening be fair with sufficiently review and in the form acceptable to the special prosecutor who was appointed to conduct an independent investigation because the state's attorney was disqualified by the years and then once we get the attorney general back in the case you're asking us to remove the attorney general and appoint somebody else in  review a forty six year old conviction but doing so anyway even contacting the former prosecutor for further insight on the matter so again his own words indict him he started and stopped the investigation mr ha as i was sitting listening to the discussion that i should be here right now as it forms for the state's attorney because they were moved in this case i guess you know this case feels bigger there's more going on there's a p that's happening independent of this it feels like a bigger case but it really is kind of typical of all the cases that i argue in this court and that i am just representing the state's attorney in a continuation of a case that started below they were removed attorney has a right to appeal their removal so when they needed somebody to speak for them and so we stepped in as we ordinarily do maybe gene would would step in for us the same and it would be the same but i feel like even though  what you said earlier on i don't know what basis in and law that a point would come from so i wouldn't think that would be an option i haven't seen anything that would convince me otherwise