please the court my name is crystal alvarez and i have the privilege of representing the appellant timothy mosley robert palmer was appointed by the seventh circuit to represent mr mosley and i've been working under his supervision mostly respectfully request that this court reversed a lower court's decision and remand for an in cameron review of the critical witnesses records the wisconsin courts here misapplied the standard for and camera view when they applied koreans established federal law for two reasons first the state and federal courts established different standards the state standard is more demanding and more restrictive to the detriment of the defendant secondly mosley has met the united states supreme court standard set out in pennsylvania the rigi the state concedes that the language used in both cases is distinct but this is not a mere semantic difference the application of reaching green is fundamentally distinct as well the students i've heard most notably in the following respect showing that something is plausible under the supreme court standard is a lower threshold than showing a specific and factual basis plausible is defined as something that is possibly true under the richie standard a defendant does not need to show materiality favorable witnesses and fact richard couldn't prove that the information he sought would be in those records he couldn't even prove that the information he sought was likely to be in those records but for the purposes of the supreme court standard defendant namely without the records that we're seeking we didn't know we couldn't prove or cross examine on how many medications were she on for her psychosis what dosages was she prescribed was she taking the appropriate dosage what symptoms servers all of the medication what symptoms are a result of her psychosis we couldn't cross examine or teach on all of those issues that go directly to the critical which credibility is this really period of time home was this has stated that over that six year period that they were intimate they had hundreds of sexual encounters however th claims that she can only remember three of those instances that shows the severity of her mental lapses your honor and returning to the contrast between richie and green the descent in ritchie referred to the claims that he brought forth as he speculations and the majority even conceded that what richie sought was and this is a direct quote unspecified honour's here the united states supreme court standard has been met mostly satisfy the richie standard because he has shown that the information in the records would be material and favorable for the following reasons first t h was the critical witness in this case given that the allegations arose surrounding their affair and the intimate conduct there was nobody else that could testify on behalf of mosley or on behalf of to gage it was her word against his as a result if the that were promptly dismissed for lack of probable cause judge denise now who sits on a circuit court in wyoming heard those allegations and deemed that they were meritless and your honor there's a nexus to this case mostly understand that that's a different case but there is a nexus to this case because in this trial th repeatedly testified that she did not consent to the sex however a neutral party a judge had already heard those allegations and deemed that math meritless said it couldn't even proceed to trial it was no basis for that so in making those same claims with respect to this trial against the same defendant she either perjured herself or she was severely mistaken identity information in the records would go to her credibility and would provide a basis for impeachment thirty th admitted that she was seeing a therapist at the time in which she was involved with mostly that's not speculative your honour's we know that by virtue of the witnesses own admission and for we know that she talked about her relationship with mosley in those therapy sessions again that's not at all speculative we know that by teachers own admission in this case when police officers began investigating mosley they approached  questioned her about their relationship and she told police officers that she i don't remember much at all so they should look at her therapy records because the information would be there again your honour's what's in those therapy records is goes to the credibility of the witness would provide a basis for impeachment and if dispositive because she's a credible witness additionally your honour's prior statements on the subject of a witness's testimony are always discoverable for impeachment purposes furthermore judge revel honesty member of this court and a professor at notre dame law school discuss the meaning of richie and his davis speech which are descent he explained that anything more than a vague allegation would satisfy richie's possible showing standard unspecified evidence satisfy the supreme court standard then mosley's clearly articulated assertions have also satisfied it and mandate the same result i definitely the denial of that in camera view further undermined mosley's ability to camera view likely would have shown what specific diagnosis she had what medications she was on what symptoms those medications have what dosages she was prescribed as opposed to what dosages she actually took whether the medication was working to treat her psycho term psychosis or mental infirmity all that is relevant to her credibility and credibility is always material in any case your honor but particularly here where she was the only witness with respect to these allegations because richie has we have strong reason to believe that her therapy records would indicate her exact diagnosis from seeing that service for a period of time and what medications she was on yes i know so why do you think it would show we think it would show that she had some sort of psychosis that affected her ability to perceive or accurately relay events and that that would have well that would make her more likely victim in the can you rephrase the question your honor well drug drugged with regard to the allegations were seeking me in camera view to confirm what mental psychosis she had and what drugs her therapist prescribe for her to treat that well that would be part of the record your honor to the best of my knowledge that's not part felt for in the brief explicitly lays out the dialogue that occurred with respect to this issue in a pretrial hearing i didn't back to two thousand and and ten their defense counsel explained to the judge in arguing for th your honor respectfully honor we actually do want the records precisely for that reason given that team would be helpful but your honor we believe that it would be helpful for the purposes of credibility and impeachment given that she had made prior false accusations  and the words that yes if she said three times it turns out that she was talking about all through all of this there the that would be true anything that would would that provide a basis for impeachment or to challenge your credibility would have been both material and favorable to the aware that this affects the victim or accuser's privacy interest but respectfully that's the united states supreme court already struck that balance when they determined richly and held that the best way to balance both parties interest the defendant and in  situation in which there were only two people involved still reborn in camera view it would be done on a case by case determination your honor your concern that is this going to be a blind fishing expedition i would argue absolutely not and i think the best fact that i can point you towards is that there were two accusers in this case mosley's defense counsel and never requested any sort of documents from the first accuser and with regard to th the request has always been to a very standard here is functionally equivalent to the federal standard secondly i also want to reiterate that the the state court's decision in this case was reasonable under the federal standard especially given the immaterial and speculative nature of mosley's request at the time that he made it not here up on appeal but back when he actually presented it to the court it was much less specific and it was very speculative and that's a large reason why the court denied in camera view it's our position here that the state court applied the proper law and the law at issue here is that we are in a case that is confined by the although the standard applied by the state court in this case may vary or differ in the language it is our position that when applied functionally they are very comparable  and this court found as much in the dietrich case and once that is established really the question we're presented then with is did the state court apply that applicable standard in a way that was unreasonable given the established group president enriching and it's our position that the that the state court did not unreasonably apply that standard and just before we get into the substance of why i think it's important to discretionary standard a discretionary standard is a standard that is going to change depending upon who is applying it and the facts of a specific case and i think that's what we have to keep in mind in this case is that it is hard to know what is or is not have to do with discretion applying and recognizing certain facts and and weighing them is the discretion of the trial court so something that they are given a little bit more latitude to do and it is our position that the state court in this case reasonably found that that mr mosley simply did not meet the standard as set forth in ritchie fo camera view and i think one of the critical points i want to make after opposing counsel's argument is that they're mentioning psychosis they're mentioning drugs they're mentioning all these things that were never presented i don't understand he made his request to the circuit court he said he alleged that the victim described her abuse the abuse from mr mosley to her therapist to me that is not going to be a favorable showing he also the only other thing that they presented to the circuit court was the fact that and his attorney and we put in the briefs his attorney said to the court what if she admits to having an affair with this guy and that was part of the reason that the court both of us circuit court and the court of appeals found that they really had no idea what was in the records and this was in fact a fishing expedition or an attempt to simply discover as opposing counsel said discover additional impeachment evidence which is not what this is for there is a protection that needs to be afforded to confidential mental health records and striking that balance is what the supreme court tried to do in richie and i think it's important to recognize here on the b s review that the that is exactly what the state courts were doing and they didn't do that in an reasonable manner they didn't do that in a way that no fair minded jurist could come up with this was a case where mostly made a very general showing that potentially and let's keep in mind that at this time he had no idea about a psychosis he didn't mention anything about that she was on any drugs she did he basically requested this really understand the government's opposition t these records are records in the government's possession they already have a brady obligation to turn over anything favorable ormont and material so they go there's already that and so the fact that nothing was turned over hopefully means nothing like that was in there so you still else how else do you know whether whether the evidence is programmed well that's what the whole richie case is about is that it's not an automatic thing but one way or the easy especially i mean this is critical evidence at this is hindsight but one thing i think is important to note is that you call this evidence important evidence that the charge was for the crimes were taking photographs of depictions of the victim without her consent and in her then subsequent trial testimony she testified that she didn't know any of the photographs existed until the police came to her and showed them to her which means that she could not have discussed that could not have discussed discussed photographs with her therapist photographs that she didn't know existed so i think all the evidence in the record shows that it gives no indication that there would be both and these and these medical i agree i agree and i think i still think that the the circuit court and then the court of appeals properly found that mr mosley simply did not make that very low preliminary showing of both materiality and favor ability which can be described in all different terms but basically that's the consistent theme you have to show how they're relevant to his case that they might affect the outcome in a way that's favorable to the but was also cumulative of what you can get through cross examination which is does she remember things she said no we take fifteen minutes to look at i agree and your point is well taken it's not a that's why the the standard is lower to get it in camera view than to get disclosure of that evidence and we understand that but on he b s and for the purposes of previous review the state really feels that it's important to keep that preliminary showing intact and under the ritchie there is a bridge for exactly these are records that were in control of the state as opposed to records that were not in control that they would be a different issue if they weren't but but yes so i think three different police departments might have had it although it's unclear because none of the police reports that the mr mosley relies on for his allegations and that none of them are ever entered into the record so they were never actually before the circuit court when the circuit ministers it so if you don't any more questions i guess i will just finish up by saying that we feel this court has already established that that the laws are comparable to state law and and the ritchie standard and we think in this case specially given what was actually presented to the to the trial court and  just briefly your honors to address a couple points opposing counsel brought out when asked how would this be favorable your honor any instance whatsoever in which she said that any aspect of the relationship was consented to that would be highly material and favorable because on the stand she said that everything all aspect of this relationship from its inception was not consented to i would go directly to the critical witnesses credibility additionally to secure her allegation on the stand was that the relationship was not that she never consented to sex even though prior judge had found that there was no probable cause to that allegation in this case after that that judge made that determination she maintained the same allegations additionally our ability to cross examine th the critical witness effectively was substantially hindered because we don't know her diagnosis her medications and whether they were working we had no access to that information and your honour's as to your concern to the victims i see that my