subject of the brady material now this court has already indicated in god he versus basinger in two thousand and ten that mr gowdy these rights to brady were violated and he did receive  his reversal by this court so remind me i'll tell you my one of the things i'm most interested in is how the problems that you're talking about the brady problem product of the police that it's impossible every single attorney including the person who argued in front of the indiana supreme court how that rule even works and no one could give me a straight answer so anybody attack been overruled another reason there are limits to this indiana rule and you could react i presume some opinion about something but to the extent the police report just which is actually the way the regular work product rule works too in fact  however what was not part of the prosecutors filed and which prosecutor kumquats a detective cummings originally took out the the line of video and kept it for lack of better word in a drawer logs it's possible it seems to be on this record rank inferences in favor of your client that they asked him and he said oh yeah i don't know i can't put my hands on that fact because that is correct because with inferences towards the pl shooters i look more like my brother i'm not the sure god i'm probably the guy mistaken for my brother it all by the way this is where the notes come into play in the synergistic effect that brady talks about that when lie after lie after lie after lie but anyone who sees the best videotaped interview which was defense counsel what he saw i would have thought he lawyer or not there's nothing here so it's incredibly incredibly material and i also want to talk about before i didn't suggest that one of it was in my brief in this case which is page forty seven to forty eight which was not addressed by the defendants in the responses about ok first of all there was not a very informed decision here because he was told that he couldn't get a real line up until monday ok which turned out to be not true because he was put in a wind up within two hours second of gandhi was asked and as evidenced by the fact that mr cummings released mr gowdy after that show up it supports what he said that he did it for the purpose of clearing otherwise why would he let him go she let him go and ha ahead of time i'm not sure how i mean that they went and got some pro or who looked similar to that to the witness and i don't know how they could possibly know i mean they didn't conduct an interview with her after she one other person that i've just been a while ago right i can't answer that question because i said i don't recall how that played out other than i know when the lineup occurred she acknowledged that she knew some of the people in the lineup and another question now of course that the resolution reached by the district court even assuming that that information but that information was not mature it was not sufficient material matters is the fact that he admitted his guilt he admitted to this and valving that in america and in terms of materiality what matters is that that that statement or that admission of involvement in the crime not to be but but long after that the order to produce the videos is october twenty third by november fourteenth it's still not there because we have videos of lined up question mark still and a and then only in november twenty second that's why i say slip didn't the last second the trial court says you know i'm sticking with my earlier adventure ruling that's the day he puts the video back in that property brown he doesn't give it to the prosecutors he doesn't facilitate it's being produced november no more discovery and that very only then does he put it back in the evidence locker when it's when the defense is going for close from that he's wearing during the entire period of concealment is that of an investigator because he removes it from the evidence locker as an investigator he keeps it in his personal custody as an investigator is authorized charges and then he washed his hands of it but had to turn it over to the other two prosecutors so he says he's not literally or even functionally acting as a prosecutor at the time being in the defendant's hands correct but so before april seventh there is no duty to turn over exculpatory evidence you're missing my point because the timeline doesn't really matter much here the violation occurs because the case is prosecuted against him and he's in the dark about the existence of this videotape who is responsible for that cummings and he's responsible for it in his status as an investigator not his status as a prosecutor  disclose the tape at a time when it could be me when it could be useful at trial and he didn't do that he didn't return it to the evidence locker until after discovery was cut off but at that point which a person with the title prosecutor might be acting and when that individuals acting as an investigator the employer against packman absolute immunity does not apply that's just the law it's been that way for a long go after the show up if it turned out instead it's exact opposite he knew that that was nothing evidence and how could you possibly get a murder indictment based on a one person show up five minutes