prosper the judge's findings more broadly your honor i point to cases like people the only or entire history of the illinois supreme court saying that questions materiality don't hinge upon such gossamer distinctions this goes back even to the fifty's the us supreme court an officer every texas where what we're really not concerned about is a very literal notion whether somebody lied as we might be in a perjury trial whether they created a misleading impression and here given that the submit that standards of living and a fairly important mr found he not fruits claim now he may not even read every element of the plane all he has to do is read the gist of a claim that doesn't have that isn't fanciful or delusion on the well we have to look at i guess just look at what is suppressed here on the state's most important evidence the trial is the trace evidence from the d n a that's found in the trunk of vehicle i mean that's really that  fairly quickly because this is the sort of thing that of course a cross official doesn't have to suffer materials available to them the answer is probably in some photo in the in or just a brief conversation with cosgrove in the discovery materials and can solve one way or the one well your honor some of us focus on the two points for future and materiality in this case for future what's a really critical fact in this case is that defense counsel was the one that was cross examining  the forensic investigators that you looked at just like it was defense counsel that had this report that they cross examine the the forensic investigator at trial now that is critical that blows out of the water defense claims on a lot of where the evidence isn't suppressed it's not final the evidence can still be written up the motion can be looked at in the context of the trial the motion can be reopened in the context of the evidence that produced the trial smith any of the cases that he cited to all these cases were cases where the information wasn't available at trial there was no one uses or test one that was in essence a sort of brady violation this evidence wasn't trial and it was only came to light maybe at a post trial ocean or are subsequent to the direct appeal even being filed or even subsequent to a first p c petition being filed this is this is a clearly forfeited issue i just want to touch briefly on materiality record you look at the affidavit for search warrant in this case and all the information is is pretty much the same as what detective make bigger testified to that there isn't any mention of blood stain testimony  so the information that was submitted the information that was submitted at the motion to suppress was more than ample well the way you look at the bloodstain evidence or not it was more than ample to solve the question of whether there was probable cause it is the cases that i cite i set out in my priest stand and look look at one of the most primary facts in this case leading up the problem for us and it's one things that the judge mentioned self and i'm i'm just going mention this point  one of the point and i'm really interested any questions that you have all the judge the judge said several times what was really important him was that the victim was the last person seen with the defendant she was the last person seen with a fan of getting into his car and that she's dead that's a pretty critical fact when you're looking at whether there's probable cause and case and yes whatever the judge's reasoning was at the trial court doesn't matter it's to normal anyway it's this that gets to determine whether the facts is apply amount to probable cause or not the judge's reasoning below doesn't match defendant is totally reliant on their reasoning blowing some some comments about what stain from an of flashlight in a car midnight in what he what he thought and saw them in the backseat of the car and as far as investigator cost growth goes she removed a a a portion of a c question in the back seat to move the whole back seat there's nothing there's nothing contrary to fence argument to say that she did a thorough search of the backseat what was she focused on she was focused on the trunk where well behold there were multiple sites of the victim's blood all over all over the trunk of the car and that evidence was was recovered as a result of a search warrant signed by jeff mass layoff and that was really the critical evidence in this case that the victim a negligent standard of care that if the prosecution knew or should have known well incidentally i looked at his case freeman i saw that and i looked at the case the freeman side to which was us versus because the court was misled by the detective's testimony into it in to be anything of the results of this hearing the issue was rendered moot before the state was prepared to plead in private that they should have to you can prove it in court now rather than simply assert that they completely in arguable as well as would be required here maybe and mostly it comes up with some sort of answer they can raise as affirmative defense at the next stage proceedings but not here not under the the very low threshold the hot standards  the case under advice