including those seven hours of recordings the eight visits while there would have been human trafficking going on at the apartment building as well as the e mails in the field phone tap and not to mention the surveillance video all of that was known to the government at the time of trial and none of it was turned over the question here is whether or not that evidence was favorable and it showed it not only reinforced the defense's theory that if somebody if some of this stuff would have happened somebody would have seen it and here we would have is that looking at your account it sounds as though people were there all the time and maybe you would have noticed people coming and going but looking then at the rest of the record it seems that they weren't they were there sometimes for certain periods of time but i'm not sure so much that the inevitability of spotting this unusual behavior that you suggest comes out to me and of course as you know the district court thought that know that investigators are there in eight days down any hours i mean for an hour or ninety minutes at one point people people did come and go there's no question go we don't know that it was only ninety minutes is part of why we asked or th ensure hearing we never had a chance to cross examine and figure out how long the detectives were there or how long that or progress were there the district court guest that ninety minutes of the longest he was someone was there was ninety minutes well we have seven and a half hours of recordings it's impossible to get a seven and a half hours of these are really just brief interactions or they're not there that was the other question is why are they there at all if not to investigate this and to find it why go through all the effort and expense is for agent they're renting a place they're going through all the steps they're going there to find evidence of human trafficking so the fact that there is i have a factual question about that i thought that was a separate investigation that khloe didn't pan out maybe a  yet that's what they represented to us in the e mail but all of the reports went to roll off and roll off was at that point investigating human trafficking so he's the one who signs a property receipt he's also the one that the reports go to when they collect the surveillance the last note i think it's on june st is dropped off everything to roll off so it's detective rohloff who's investigating human trafficking is launching this undercover operation he's the one who assigned the roles he's the one who decided you know when they would go there he's going to shoot the phone tower so it's not a separate investigation that's what we're told and that's why we didn't pursue it before trial it's the same investigation it's just different investigatory tools they're looking for studio and didn't observe anything didn't observe any human trafficking to speak of and you think that was you know well that it would have made a sorry not even to speak of didn't observe any but your theory is that that was so favorable that it would have moved the jury to come to a different result or there's a reasonable probability that it would exactly this was not a strong case for the government this is a weak case and that is the weaker the case the smaller the mo evidence that we need to say there's a reasonable probability but here this is actually very strong evidence this is exactly the type of evidence and walter that the defense used and it's not just that they were there at a time said that you went and collected the surveillance video and the surveillance video inside the apartment didn't show anything that's not an insignificant amount of evidence nor is it the fact that you talk to miller for seven and a half hours and never once as you say hey would you like a prostitute you know i have these girls i'm running these girls all of that goes to these law enforcement contacts that we would've been able to not just present to do to the jury but to say where is the evidence that they were seeking it's because the stories that you've been told by the two women would didn't actually happen nor did schumacher or run his ask his testimony was it reliable every part of every witness here was impeached it was not a case where there was overwhelming evidence or  there was any physical evidence any evidence that actually tied miller to this and as you depart from that kind of trajectory where you can say this is a reliable very thorough investigation and you go to impeach unreliable witnesses impeached but will put aside i think the jury didn't think that the impeachment was so strong to render their testimony completely worthless right because they convicted but i thought it wasn't just says to my advantage that there was some evidence t that was true testimony of that of the right there is a paralegal from back page who testified the paralegal said that the cell phone so they used what was called sorry a wife i phone you know that you can connect to why five and that he had used that in fact that you and she posted using that phone she said that she didn't have a phone for various periods of time so that's where that testimony comes in but it's also when they call i'm saying they've undercovers call miller writes he actually answers twice so it's she's using this phone she's allowed to use that phone she's actually a guest there is this is a flop house a flop apartment and efficiency we never contested this you didn't stay there so the fact that she had access to the phone and the fact that the phone was posted back pages doesn't mean that miller actually use force or coercion that's the key to it who is not that these women were at were engaging in prostitution that we've always accepted and we've understood and we that happen is whether or not miller was the one who forced them and for that their testimony has to be reliable and part of their testimony is this whole mosaic that they painted of miller standing there with a bat miller controlling them miller having collecting the money  in fact he failed to satisfy all three st with regard to materiality governance materially are going to strong in this court can from the district court on this factor alone both victims gave details and uncontroverted testimony that miller physically and psychologically forced or coerced them to engage in commercial sex transactions or his benefits the victim's testimony was corrupted by other testimony from three other witnesses who were in the room at the time of the trafficking testified that miller abus everybody else has to clear out off they go into the hall there's activity of people around the building and if somebody is really post in the building and they never notice these bursts of and if it is when somebody is going out there maybe there were no bursts of activity maybe there was nothing going on the apartment the women were unhappy about me that maybe they were lying maybe they were telling the truth but the jury never hears evidence to suggest that they were the active investigations of mark's which i'm going to find is beginning when the officers met merged through when rescue left miller's apartment they paid five visits degree waycross the longest of which appeared to be ninety minutes long notes did not indicate the officers ever visited the building nd floor much less stop at miller's apartment until after brett's he left nuts when mertz stopped by militia partment to drop off he to his storage locker do we have to we know that if people were ft but the whole notion that officers could have been should have witnessed individuals leaving the apartments during the commercial trans sex transactions is pure speculation brisky never testified there's nothing to say that he could have or should have witnessed these individuals leaving miller's apartment and to the extent that miller is arguing that individuals walking into the building would constitute conditio of sex trafficking there's absolutely no evidence they have no real reason to believe that the act of walking into a commercial building with alert officers to the presence of sex trafficking  hear it was available anyway argument because some very disturbed you know if the government tells somebody this investigation is about something unrelated to the one that you were involved with your position seems to be that people have to assume that the government is lying and pursue it anyway just in case the government's dissembling which hopefully is not the background assumption that we have for the behavior of the us attorney's office so that's what happened here they ask they got you know kind of a hey it's not about your case and so they they trusted you and they dropped it so it seems to me troubling to think that that you're shaving that close to the border  memorized but you basically told them that it was related to another case and there are no reports to turn over and so another case means a different case i don't know what else it could mean and so i i think there's a candor issue here your honor the government basically in that in that e mail  there were no reports because nobody wrote anything down i i don't know it's it's not the kind of response that would make you think that you then needed to not write any reports because you did not discover any evidence of criminal activity and that you never called it a parallel investigation you never called it you know an alternative way to pursue whatever it was miller was up to in this efficient you gave them the impression as judge barrett suggested a few minutes ago maybe it was a drug case maybe two other people in the same building you know nothing to say only one unit in the building could have a problem of course separate to me indicates that it involved investigation into a different form of criminal activity just nothing the record to indicate with the purpose of this investigation months in any event it doesn't have any effect on the outcome of this case because it doesn't evidence which is emerging the other officers this is agree waycross five times during the active investigation in did not see any evidence of sex trafficking because they had little or no opportunity to witness evidence of sex trafficking i think it's a point to emphasize that this investigation creep over two months after daniel's left the apartment in overlap with risky stay in the apartment approximately three weeks and as i mentioned before the officers never went to the nd floor except for one time which merged dropped commercial sex trafficking going on bets daniels and brisky were acting as prostitutes and the only issue here is whether miller coerced daniels or pritzker into engaging in commercial sex transactions in nothing that m with the other officer saw address this particular issue moreover none of this none of the evidence emerges no sorority recordings implicated much less how much less undermined the winces testimony this is a much different case than the water case in which the alleged brady evidence directly implicated the credibility of one of the government's key witnesses right here you have the none of the officers ever met any of the individuals either victim or any of under other individuals who testified as to the sex trafficking going on different than wild sex trafficking was going on so they really you know what they saw or or didn't see has no bearing on whether the sex trafficking actually took place and i guess sort of going back to your suppression point george would you know i don't think it's necessary for the court to address this issue i think the government's case on both the favor billy materiality factors is so strong on so if the if this court i about me why does it matter why they were there i mean it seems to me your basic point is we happened to know that there were more witnesses in this building even if they had been people opening up a new little business maybe they would have seen a bunch of people leaving the apartment a bunch of people going back in so i'm not sure why the fact that they happened to be police officers either for sex trafficking or for drug trafficking or anything else what your main point seems to be is that they didn't see any evidence corroborating the theory of the sex trade that's a very big point but it's also that there are trained police officers looking for evidence of human trafficking there are there at roll off through directs them in there and he's in the midst of a human trafficking investigation so the idea that they don't go up to the nd floor just because the notes don't speak of it doesn't mean that they didn't do it or that we don't have the right to actually have an evidentiary hearing to examine what they did do that's the problem with this why are they there if they're not there to go and gather evidence then why does rohloff launched this investigation roll up has launched this investigation they're looking for evidence of human trafficking borders on incompetence to not go up to the nd floor or not say let's figure out why are these people coming in or what substantiates the story what did the surveillance video show all those are critical points they gather surveillance video that that should be the best evidence there possibly is and the defense doesn't even know about it what did it show we don't know that and that's what a jury wants to know the jury wants to know about them was it about it it's the puzzle pieces are put together and they say this is all that leads to a reasonable doubt and that's the standard here the reasonable probability of a different verdict and all of that would go to whether or not these witnesses could be believed by allowing this to be affirmed is really just sanctioning not only the misgivings and mr rection that we were exposed to but it's also saying that you can just go and open into a separate case file you don't have to keep discovery the way the rule sixteen demands you know defense attorneys you don't even get your client statements