to the consideration by the government by the government in his brief that he has and continues duty to us every station to t to address the material issue the government and enjoyed schmidt initially stated that it was not material because we were dealing with in his statements and this is these are all determinations i would submit to the court that they drew he has to me i mean the prosecutor or you know has a lot of power but the prosecutor has no power to determine the trial because they were for allowing the trials in this case he specifically stated let me be clear and i'm trying to quote as best i can there's no doubt that now on was involved he said he i'm not quoting directly but he said let me applies to pretrial proceedings the united states that not suppressed any evidence before trial this evidence came about after trial and that is why the proper standard to analyze this is right where they have to know this had no personal knowledge of the murder because he wasn't even there ok so your contention that the law may even if it may provide some basis or a defense theory who was the same shooter that the cooperating witnesses in law in the trial identified as being the person involved in the murder so luis jonjo day would have cool robbery are cooperating witnesses and who his case was returned to the district level after he success succeeded in that suppression claim on appeal he decided not to use any of this cooperating witnesses knowing that he couldn't because he knew there were and favorable now if you look at the testimony that he's cooperating witnesses from about her own peril and what i've been able to provide which is that those statements would not be material because they statement they can't also use the same in against interests exception because what john jay is saying is he's relating statements need by other persons when you look at those statements none of them are i guess interest and one of the statements some of the statements are even by his cousin who's not even a member of alone who ordered our own but i don't know the other exception the other way they could have tried to get in is through les with his opinion but again this wouldn't be a proper mechanism either because you can't test your you can't based your opinion your lay when this opinion on statements on hearsay statements that  that he heard this information is he not implicating himself in a criminal combination no your honor because those statements he would they would have to show totem pol himself as a person who was in a position to have heard that so i'm trying to understand why his statement even if it includes hearsay is not a statement against interest doesn't get passed get them past the hearsay problem but but you say it's not a statement against interest at all no because just merely hearing someone else they something doesn't implicate you necessarily in a conspiracy because what he would have s is for example i think is whether saying well the ones that they bring pippin told me look out that they don't kill us they killed so that would mean that anyone who hears an incriminating statement by someone else then that would be is the man that is in truth is twenty reply when he when he then restates that that he that he heard that it's the actual statement that he's making but he would yes is that not a statement against interest no because thank you all thank you