compelling the first being that there were several confessions not just one and two a variety of people at a variety of times so it wasn't just a one time momentary passing thing and the other mr maurice we know that the story of allison and of that is roughly comparable is different some of the tales but roughly common we know that mr morris the story follows maybe twenty minutes later or so he sees both of the young women the girls outside of the van both of them upset his story is that he learns that mr van the rock hitting has already taken place i've got the following problems with mr morris a story quite independent of his confessions number yet we all learned through the course of the examination that the belt buckle is still buckle which is an odd way for somebody going to try to commit rape an odd way for the for the parents to be we also know that mr van zandt had been drinking very heavily during the day and what the consequence of heavy drinking and sexual ability is cast some possible but i've not seen it better so i think you know it's been a long time since i've seen a picture secondly it's my recollection key point for me is not how far down they were paul but of the belt will stop buckled secondly it's my recollection that one of the obligation to sort out the problems with these witnesses well for decided to go to trial then i get back to the confession and he has an explanation but the jury's not obliged to believe that and there's no there's no evidence whatsoever would have happened either you would have had a new trial without her as a witness or you would have had an instruction to the jury to disregard her testimony but that that's why you have to testimony and it strikes me that you might have been better off having her because she was first were really on the stand but she wasn't very believable i need to have her there being sworn only might have been marked here advantage than having her not there at all because strongly as you can for your side what can we reasonably or even plausibly think has that might have said had she been telling the truth that would have  long question which affects not only that which affects the prosecution of this case and prosecution is not only the way the guilt phase but also the difference we have or we have a situation in which before you get started well the question is still in my mind there's a district attorney have unbridled this question as to who as to who he seeks the death penalty i want to always you bond by due process of law and equal protection of the law for  the discretion of the prosecution is unbridled certainly the prosecutor cannot take into account any types of india's classifications are categories and in choosing who to seek the death penalty for not well certainly i think that's the implication of the type of case law that we've seen over the past that is looked at although it is ultimately rejected it would like to stick with the mission of on line in this case when he when he he knows in his own mind that all three of these people are liars off when we start respecting about something here it's not on the record but i'd be glad to do that with you if you'd like the prosecutor is looking at a case in which you have three people you have a man who has confessed multiple times and multiple circumstances little contacts to be the actual perpetrator of the murder he was a person with a prior record for violent crimes the accomplices while they certainly were involved in the planning of the crimes are young do not have those kinds of records in deciding who the appropriate candidate is for seeking the death penalty it's not inappropriate for the for the prosecutor to make that type of decision now furthermore a prosecutor who's looking at putting on a trial realizes that he's going to be introducing evidence of these confessions and statements he doesn't know whether or not in the i'm talking about the entire prosecution of this case in this case based on the nature of the evidence and the character of the offense and of the offenders which are the appropriate circumstances or take into account in exercising that discretion and i ask you a question about this matter yes from like attorney client material when it came out as part of the of the of the year of the discovery in this matter your honor that occurred why is it even discoverable well the discovery would because we were in the process a little getting ineffective assistance of counsel claim of the defense files exhibit in this case your honor and i think since there is some claims about who was has been and was not telling the truth in this case and who we should believe in not believe that letter of course is in fact one more indication of mr yet to consider what i'm asking whether or not certain things were harmful or homicide because that evidence clearly would never gone to the jury it's that if you like i mean i'll make it clear i'm responsible to the concerns that have been raised about the ability of the of the of the defen six i did not see and i can say that constructively i guess saw the roberts letter in two thousand and four when i was in the prosecution files in this matter frankly if i saw it it didn't register with me benefit of a plea bargain or well should've told you as well that there was a possibility that a prosecutor had knowingly allowed perjured testimony to go to the jury well actually given the facts the circumstances the police schedule for june twenty fourth we're going to get to the track when i get the transcript and we're going to see whether or not it's something that validates the plea we know that the plea is then entered on the twenty second of july but we know that it was of sufficient concern and the word of perjury is there that that's pretty that's real evidence whether conclusive or not i'm not yet saying but that's real evidence that there was perjury after a while and that there was perjur testimony that went to the jury you can't say it was impossible to read it that way possible doing it that's what it says arms face going or what it did say was that there was an undisclosed falsity that went to the jury where the moment a lawyer to make that what other perjury she might have committed i don't know and one of the problems i'm having with this of course is that in one thousand nine hundred sex the person who was in the best position to tell us this is mr rossi he's dead in two thousand and two and you're not learning anything between which there would be in that she didn't that the prosecution were not going to or any obligation to dismiss or charges this memo was in fact indication that you know what she didn't give completely truthful testimony everybody knows characterized i think rather generously by the magistrate judge as the forgetful marshal this presumed explanation relieves the state from the obligation to have given this material to the defense i'm not so concerned with the other letter which basically said i heard from a third party that they were all guilty which seems to me not expose but torie and not particularly well but this this material i just don't understand the explanation or know why that that shouldn't have been turned over right away and as it was discovered of automatic reversal in regards to this type of error and i think once again as the district court pointed out below there were fact opportunities for mr morris to present evidence  agreement certainly at that point with prosecution she would have you know and there are there are a lot of go of all that i think make it hard to predict exactly what would happen in that type of situation obviously depending on the nature of how and with them have the effect on the verdict that you want to have one way of looking at of course is just let's pretend of that never testified and the trial went on except for the fact that she but it's possible of course that mr moore stopped that because he wasn't there they say he comes back up on the river and the girls come on the strike so maybe he will try to write my maybe not but then that leaves me with a situation in which no one other than those three people actually knew the truth but they did have physical evidence that was consistent with your clients and they have multiple confessions from him and i guess that i have difficulty