reveal until the very end of the trial the list of twenty eight people that were present in the marriott hotel ballroom at the time of the offense now whether this was a violation of brady versus maryland or a violation file a formal discovery the a problem with severely prejudiced by not being able to obtain the list of people and having the opportunity to interview them i would suggest that the list of witnesses was absolutely crucial to the problems that because it was convicted of attempted arson of the hotel the key question was whether she intended to burn the hotel as the government argued success there's a case that holds precisely that but i would like to suggest to the court that if if the court were to say or if the rule was that you had to file a formal discovery motion in the district court  ever ever to obtain sanctions for the government's failure to comply it basically would wipe out the whole idea of informal discovery in the district court as i think the court is and i think that is done at least in the northern district and i think most of the districts if not all in california to avoid having to go and file lengths the discovery motions well if the government is allowed to tell defense counsel  you're getting open file discovery you're getting everything i have and then hide them also to speak and i'm not really blaming the government because i truly believe that the government attorney was honest when she said i didn't get this i told my check out these witnesses or anything there was no motion to continue and the record reflects that throughout the trial the jury have been told this will get to you this week that was the point in the trial was that they were just about finished perhaps great material as it turns out once the defense counsel's investigator made an investigation he contacted appears at least three of the twenty eight witnesses and two of them provided brady material  greater material it's not necessarily brady violation because as i understand this record you you have as much access to finding that out as the government did and if that's true you know i made and these this was a list of currently of people that had some information the facts show that the appellant went into the back of the ballroom and apparently most if not all of the people were already in the war room and the consul general had already begun speak people presumably in the front just like in this courtroom if there were a problem in the back i wouldn't say he and the people here are in council team or wouldn't see what was going on so i don't think counsel had any knowledge that there was a list of people in that there were a number of people who apparently did see exactly what was going on and he had material eye witness testimony i would also ask your honor to think back to the case of paradise was a robbery and probably or away from her and our way i think the testimony was conflicting but at least several feet there's an indication grabbing distance lower than our outreach i don't know i believe the testimony is that was not that's an indication she intended to burn the hotel maybe even run out before she gets burned if she has got this on her person as she sat and is one of the witnesses was declaration they received once they got the material says that's a definite indication that she intended to burn herself she has a can of gasoline the torch and the lighter on her person and that is the testimony that did not get in and that is the testimony that we know now that at least two of those twenty eight witnesses most  investigator never talked to would have provided and these would have been independent witnesses they were not government witnesses who testified to the contrary and they presumably would not have been supporters of her because she was attending a function point on by the co i came to the case for trial the prosecutor in this case made a representation that she was giving defense counsel pretty much everything that was in her files but i mean that pretty much  tort your honor was that we were providing open file discovery i don't know if there's anything in the record as to what representations were made i just i think question you agree that an agreement by the government to give open file discovery think that that's correct your honor and there is reasons why defense counsel don't file discovery requests and don't file discovery motions and that's in order to not invoke their reciprocal discovery obligations under the rules and so it's counsel didn't get anything here by not filing a discovery request there was then no reciprocal right on the defendant's part to produce discovery in this case and as your honour's noted there is no case why there's no prejudice for her not being able to produce that testimony first of all any testimony in that regard would be directly contradicted by the physical evidence in this case  this open container of gasoline in it that gasoline would have been all over the ball room in her and asians who attack at the time she was things at the time she was seized and there was no evidence in fact all the evidence was that the meeting went forward captain elmer car from the s f san francisco fire department came in to the room i believe soon after he arrived and smelled no gas in the room so it just doesn't make sense that she upon at all by counsel in closing argument your honour's i mean did you make the closing argument i did make a closing argument and i reviewed the record and i don't recall relying on the location of the bag and i think if you look at the record closely the government doesn't rely on that at all the forum for be evidence regarding her arson conviction in london in that case the friend it was convicted of arson with respect to her throwing kerosene at the vietnamese and the city in latin in london and i think that show examination that she planned to be in san jose the next day in the words of the district court and this is on page one forty four of the excerpts of record and i quote the fact of the matter is that she had plans to be somewhere else the next day i think the jury found her probably found it somewhat difficult to reconcile the future plan with someone who intended to actually step themselves on fire and i think that that that testimony that she had plans for the in day directly contradicts her intent to kill herself by self immolation on what i believe was december thirteenth two thousand and one my view of the evidence is your honor and my view what the jury found w they believe that the defendant was perfectly willing to go to jail for her beliefs but that she was not willing to die for those beliefs on all your honor under brady i believe that this verdict w a return flight that yes she was not a u s citizen on her visa in order to enter the united states she had have a round trip plane that was not a that was not to do that all up the us open file discovery is an indication to trial lawyers to attorneys on both sides the government and defense counsel that they don't have to file a discovery motion in fact i would suggest that if the defense counsel in a case like this were to file a because they don't want the obligation to reciprocate i have never heard that i don't think that's appropriate at all and in fact here is i understand you open the file discovery was what reciprocal i don't know if