asking for all police reports that evidence the police investigation of mr george robles this was essential to the defense theory that mr willis was was a liar and a fraud that he had something to gain from his testimony from his cooperation the district attorney stood up and flatly denied such investigations and the reports exist in fact in closing arguments urged the jury to reject this line of cross examination because there was no substance to it there was no factual predicate when in fact there were numerous reports and numerous indications that this gentleman had been under police investigation for some time and that he was aware of it each of these he was consulted by the police of about these allegations so he was aware that he was under investigation what is the brady material what should have been turned over at that point that that wasn't other that there were this reports yes the police reports there were there were five incidents all of all felonies where mr world bliss was investigated and hey we have this gentleman under investigation when he comes before you and says he has no interest or the being a good citizen that may be wrong he does have an interest in parlaying his cooperation in favorable treatment but certainly these police reports had to be described to police reports how about the report regarding this car box and the fingerprints of salut because again he's under investigation we know that for a couple reasons they fingerprinted him they didn't go to a bank of fingerprints they said when you come down to be fingerprinted will you come down and let us photograph your tattoo which indicated a gang affiliation is labeled in that document the the positive police positive fingerprint report as a suspect and he's implicated in a seizure a major seizure of over thirty grams of the gang affiliation it's nightlife click he was he was extensively cross examined it trial whether he was in a gang the defense lawyer repeatedly referred to the night life click as a gang and robel has consistently denied that's correct and what's what what what immiscible evidence is in this record to the contrary the there was a major drug seizure which involved a number of people for example there were two people that ran the the drug house but what's significant is not i mean it's again let me let me ask the question again what because i this question for me is is supre important what it miscible evidence is there in this record you you did a fabulous job in discovery once you got access to to discover documents what is in this record that would be admissible evidence to disprove roadways statements a trial that night life clip is not a gag and that he's not a major drug dealer the major drug seizure and that is that evidence that there were a number of people police report yes he's a police reports like is usually the precise site that's helpful attached one of the third fourth or fifth it was attached to the to the petitions and it's in the appendix  house they said we understand an individual brought drugs to this house those individuals emitted keeping mr willis's drugs for him it was a stash house they turned over the bag that had been delivered there and that's the bodies that is evidence of a conspiracy whether we want to call it again or not there was a group of individuals involved in this but what's crucial is that they went to mr world list and said we're asking you about this so he knows he's under investigation cause he appears to have definitely alluded prosecution and conviction i mean if you were the defense lawyer you'd be jumping up and down objecting to the admissibility of this evidence saying will so his fingerprints on a cigar box so what that doesn't mean he held the cigar box when it contained the crack cocaine maybe help a cigar box when it contains cigars who knows well let me this is i mean if the question is posed generally does this guy look like he's dirty and perhaps is some guy who comes down from new york to run in pennsylvania to establish himself as a drug kingpin sure but what you need to show us admissible evidence that could have been put forward into court in the trial of mr johnson let me preface it this way what is that admissible if it is it is it a document is it testimony what is it it can't be some sort of general sense that there was a big seizure and we all really are pretty confident that expecting the police overlook your crimes in exchange for your cooperation which he denied so on cross examination you can say mr robles did come to you in a best a gate and ask you about this drug in his mind he knew he was under investigation when defense counsel stood up and made this request the district attorney didn't say well this was admissible that it's too far afield this time said these reports don't exist trial but what i'm seeing in the appendix is more of the same it's robel is saying i've never been arrested true but never in convicted true of talk to kabera hundreds of times i'm always around when crime happens i'm the guy to see on the gambino i smoke weed he's admitted to drug use he's admitted to all kinds of illicit behavior but what i don't see in the appendix through all of the federal discovery is that in fact he's a may let's look at state law on this let me just read one sentence from a legal case a defendant has a right to impeach by showing bias to challenge a witness is self interest a questioning about possible or actual favor treatment by the prosecutor talked at all about the pursuit of a question that when we get to cause unprejudiced let's assume there are ten police reports that should have been disclosed on the other hand in the third fourth fifth petition there are lots of affidavits from people and investigators that presumably could have been discovered separate and apart from these police reports don't we look at that evidence and say it wasn't necessarily the the brady material it was that they never called these people and some of the if i had say i told them i was ready to to testify and they never called me and these files are saying he feels drugs he does this he's in with the police these two cops are dirty i mean there's lots of evidence that wasn't brought in of the same type so don't we in looking at cause and prejudice have to weigh how much the brady cooperated material what role that really played as compared to you know it didn't bring in anything to rebut his statement no no it's not that mr probus was a drug dealer it's not that he's a violent man who shoots is going off to people it's that he knew he was under investigation for these crimes that's what gives him the motivation a of just show that he's an individual has a reputation as a drug dealer the police should have known when we got those police reports that was confirmation again that was suppressed we asked for those at trial the district attorney flat out the night existed that's confirmation of the key thing that was missing from the affidavit in that the midst of all this know he was under investigation did he have a reason to try to parlay his cooperation of into some kind of leniency was he formally under investigation or just somebody that they suspected was was there in each of these reports we produced five of them there were witnesses that accused him by name of and a liar and he has reason to fabricate his account in fact he stood up and said i'm motivated by a guilty conscience i'm just trying to do the right thing consistently denied he had any motivation other than to be a that i would suggest is that there was an affidavit from a investigator that that new central one said she was threatened but that's that's a key to what we're here today there is no hearing below that has not been fleshed out what's key about new central a few things one she cohabited the very same residence where mr wallace was selling drugs in the police reports again undisclosed was an incident where whose entire account of even the prosecution to have much faith in her entire county trial was three pages she overheard one remark and when the t v was on that was all she can testify to there's no question she suddenly saw gun that she had never seen that's correct that's correct but to be honest i think if you asked yes and to be honest judge rio seemingly agreed that this was of material evidence just in his mind used the term speculative i suggest there's nothing special about these reports they had real live witnesses real life forensic evidence thinker prints drug testing he was a suspect in these cases you know what he said it was a story in a story you know it would lead to and if there is something to that it was you look at these these reports they're all about incidents that just aren't relevant here are we if we were to find caus prejudice at that level what is our role as a court well i think deserves of the standard of review deference the applicability of the evidence fell under that second opinion they explicitly say this is on time we are not addressing the merits second opinion that on the third edition it would be i believe the third fourth and fifth positions are funneled into it the fact that the second petition w arguably on the merits doesn't matter what the third fourth fifth where it was strictly procedural now at the beginning of the analysis here before i suggest also in that in that case is specifically found a fault but even if that was  situation in this case good morning in their place a court i'm andrea mccann our i am the senior deputy attorney general from the pennsylvania attorney general's office for the respond and i think you know i can answer this question ultimately and this is what i want to want to start with now is this might as well this was not a drug case the materials that have been labeled brady during this hideous process i submit are not brady because for them to be brady this court sitting obviously in federal hideous look reviewing a state court determination would have to say that brady requires the commonwealth not just to turn over reports that were made in connection with the murder investigation but to scour the entire universe me i don't know your honor but what i'm saying is the obligation that judge johnson would have this court impose is an obligation to scour police reports look for names look for reports that just mention the name of a commonwealth witness and turn those over into brady but i would be one thing if the representation was we've looked at the conviction records and he's never convicted if you look at the reports that existed prior to the time of trial at the trying time of trial george was not convicted of anything he hadn't been arrested he hadn't been charged now there was one there was one incident report where it appears that he assaulted a person on the on the street and as i stand here the data that escapes me that never went forward because the victims are reported victims refused to cooperate in the investigation and the police withdrew it so yes there are very there are police reports that say things like there were shots fired in the house that were george robles lived and we saw him when the police came to that scene we noticed that he was standing on the on the street impeachment material is brady and here but but here is another point that i think is absolutely crucial to keeping to bearing this in mind when the federal defenders filed their second p c r a petition which was  timely the facts that they asserted as suppressed brady information where the things that you judge hardiman referenced during opposing counsel's argument that robles was a member of this click that he had a tattoo that his name was gambino that the police came to him for information because he in his estimation he was so important and knew everything that was going on all of this information number one came the defense was this is why the defense knew perfectly well what george rebels was and what he was up to he in johnson were were friends they weren't two people who just passed each other in the dark of night on the of the specifics that were later discovered through the federal discovery process johnson name not have known that there were police reports naming revelations as a suspect and that word was used twice i believe i think that's yes possibly evidence to go on with discovery or to go on with impeachment obviously yes my point is johnson and robots were not strangers to each other i would submit that johnson right johnson knew johnson you know he knew rove was what he was all about in every way shape or form he's wearing his clothes he's saying it is place they were quote best friends i understand that but isn't it true that some of the evidence discovered through the federal process was information that johnson would not have know it was it was it was information to which only the police were pretty he may johnson may not have known there was a robust who was an admitted cigar smoker that his fingerprint was on a cigar box so what until you say and what your fingerprints found on the cigar box where there were one hundred forty packets of crack and you know weren't you and the steroid as you say this but isn't it true that i mean you can then catch him in his in his lies whereas you know part part of that part and parcel of the of the are but here is that rebel us was instant was a drug dealer maybe he even did dealt drugs with the police and in order to protect his alleged drug dealing and the corrupt police he basically was a commonwealth puppet and testified to what the commonwealth wanted him to say that ignores the rather inconvenient fact that when  when the day came for the preliminary hearing of johnson robust was nowhere to be found in the commonwealth had to go out arrest him and hold him as a material witness so so that's tens well i think that tends to to speak against the fact that he was this willing police tell wait a minute if johnson and johnson supposedly hit him and he comes in and he i believe it is i believe it is these reports would have come up story after them and every one of them would have been subject to objection by the commonwealth that the basically the what i'm saying is none of this is material on rel on grounds of relevance primarily because i do think that it is not reasonable to believe that a trial court judge sitting in a murder trial would have permitted his control of the murder trial to extend into an investigation of drug dealing and or police  the judge would have allowed any inquiry into whether robles had skin in the game i mean as i understand the other side's argument that the picture there and this was written about nausea of other stake  that robots had skin in the game robledo was under scrutiny under investigation in trouble and if he didn't play ball in the johnson case is he was going to be  that quote nice seat that he referred to a trial i mean that's the theory and that's fair game all that's coming in right well that goes to whether he's telling the truth or not and that's the that's the defenders theory i don't know that that was  anyone's theory prior to the second piece c r a being filed well it was i wrote i mean the trial transcript that comes out in spades mr baseball i mean constantly was was saying you know you're a gang member prejudice well but it allows the defense when he signed saying isn't it true that that out of that isn't it true that and you don't even need to you don't introduce a police report you can just come back to him with you know with his denials cigar box i don't i don't see the relevance and i don't know that a trial court judge would have seen the relevance or isn't it true that shots were fired at the house that you live in or isn't it true that the police always seem to see you w they may they may have been but i have to say that i don't believe that that in itself would render this verdict would remove all confidence in the in the suburban undermine undermined confidence murder verdict that's trying to find the difference you know i don't have any physical evidence we have two people who came in touch with the shooter one of whom knew johnson who did not make positive identification we have three three witnesses each of whom we now know has you know may not be telling the truth well if if the court can i say my time is up but i just want  all right thank you i want to speak to you to judgment else question and the inference it makes to the it's affidavit these affidavits were made years maybe decades after the events occurred they were made by the defenders transcribed by the defenders they have never been subject to any kind of scrutiny cross examination and so forth  prepared by the defenders transcribed by the defenders and that we can that that this panel should not take as absolute truth in that they are untested but i want to finally say this class as was at the time johnson's girlfriend her testimony and a young woman so she like many people questioned by the police may have felt pressure coersion whatever but her testimony was she engine somewhere watching the local news the news of the martinez murder came on the screen and he said they were talking about me i killed them i'm a hit man that's what i do so there is i believe credible evidence is the evidence which the district court called overwhelming commonwealth evidence but didn't didn't she say that she had never seen a gun if you told her you had a gun and then later on the stand the first time ever she says yeah i guess i've seen  original i said he's in new york and he in fact was somewhere else and she knew that was the case very briefly let me point out why that mattered in this case and hopefully allay some of the reservations the car while there was no scientific evidence in this case there was no identification evidence in this case and the jury was out for nine and a half hours at one point reported that they were play defense lawyer turn back the clock you're representing mr johnson at trial you've got roadless on the stand and unlike poor mr dispell if i'm remembering his name correctly now you are armed with all kinds of information that he didn't have hundred six regarding an aggravated assault with two witnesses accused you of pointing a gun and threatening their lives and saying i know your family and where you live and then shooting off the gun this role this trial denied being involved in any guess what i'm wrestling with is how does he know he's under investigation don't you have to show almost that that he was robust was privy to these documents that say he's a suspect not pretty when you can you can you can ask him isn't it true robles you're trying to curry favor with the police no well isn't it true that you're under investigation for other crimes no don't you then need to have some evidence to show that he's aware that he's under investigation it's not enough to bring in something that only the police are privy to because then he looks that's all that's the first i've heard of that yes and he should always happen at sidebar in each of these instances which we rely on the police confronted him personally and told them use  account and that's what's crucial and there's one in the very first one there's i think one key fact and i'll close with that that he denied being the pulling a gun on these individuals but what he said to the police there was while i'm here let me give you inkling that if i cooperate with the police maybe they overlook my crimes and that was the thrust of the defense no one objected at trial to this line of questioning that's if he's perfect sense to me but i i don't know how it's come into evidence i mean if you're painting you've painted a great picture of a crooked guy and maybe who knows even perhaps crooked police but that where where what evidence is coming in oh well i think the best smoke weed you hang out all day you're living off your pour you know girlfriend who works at boss cos you're playing video games you go out at one in the morning for the casablanca on and on and on i mean the point is that he'll be only i guess the only conclusion looking at the verdict is you know the jury could do nothing but conclude this guy is a really really bad guy who happens to be telling the truth about some guy showed up at his house who used to be his best friend out of breath saying i just killed somebody i suggest that mountain they tried to impeach him right there's a lot there's a lot of evidence to show that he's a bad guy and but but you're saying there could have been more there should have been more and again what what evidence is that actually gets you the prejudiced that you need in order for us to overturn this this for the theory of the defense was that mr robey was not a good citizen he's not coming forward  those investigations were still pending or were they in the past they certainly in his mind were opened they were not beyond any kind of special limitations he had no indication whether or not they were pursuing that or not and we know for federal cases these investigations often take months if not years