knowing that the court is familiar with the facts i will go directly to what we believe was the district court's error in denying qualified immunity to mr i asked under both prongs of the qualified immunity z but i didn't understand plaintiff's case to focus only on that and i thought it was also making an assertion about continuing to investigate even after innocent then it would show that by continuing the investigation the law enforcement officer intended to frame the individual in this case mr malcolm x so the only evidence that pla at if i understand right even as you just described the birth there is a requirement that if you know that it is that you stop investigating and i as i read the allegation back for the record innocent and so is it your position that there is no way to ever over a confession i mean could there that it's not possible to have a lot of other evidence that someone else committed the crime of to question is taking place so in this case it can be three or four months later that something would happen where law enforcement conclude gosh i've got the information now that causes me to believe that  individual who's under arrest and charged with this crime is innocent because if if mr onst intended to frame mr allen congress at the time he interviewed caroline jones all as which would be the only time he was back i asked you about whether the claim goes through after interview with well i mean if they found out and they form of later and yet continue to investigate isn't it possible that they're at that point investigating that when they know it to be as i thought that that was part honest and detective hides coerce caroline gives all is to use the name joel how comes instead of another name when she described the person she encountered in the alley talking about the to determine whether or not a plane has made his or shown deliberate fabrication of evidence the court focuses on what was known to the law enforcement officer at the time that he or she was conducting that piece of investigation if he fabricated her testimony if he caused her to use a false name when she stated she's not an alley he had to have done that during that thirty minutes interview and if he intended to frame mr alcott us which is the circumstantial quality of that evidence under general he had to have had that intent at that time which means i've had time he would have had presented to the petit jury that convicted him the  so i let me ask again is there anything that the plaintiff claims was so explosive atory that your client should have known that mr alcott's was innocent any evidence that your client should have known or during the investigation  claim of a family case in evidence that involves an allegation that the officers had knowledge that was not provided to mr conses defense counsel so when when did the note about alibis come out i thought there was a difference between when the officers were saying there were no notes and then when it turned up there were when did that happen oh you mean that that  supplemental excerpts those were all records from the city of long who that mr ross never had access to never was in possession of and wasn't aware of and wasn't aware of there's no evidence in the record  show that he had any knowledge of those notes and with those notes appeared to be either the notes on the lawn hope police department officers who were tasks by detectives high eight with statement where she was identifying someone who was identified to her as drawl yes so her and that point was that point was made to the petit jury right  question or they knew that not only did she say john wilcox to her mother but that's in it that's in the interview other people say yeah but other people say i listened to the interview i didn't see that there's also statements by the just record that they showed her photographs in an attempt to get her to enter to implicate your client and i don't what actually happened it is painful he says i didn't do it and do it and they say your finger was a lie to your fingerprints or their last three said you were there of course lottery from day one said it was fine jay told his own lawyer would later knew at the time that he was a suspect and they just let it go because they had somebody in custody and her whatever reason confirmatory you know trying to do whatever they're doing they they time and you counsel i i think we have about three minutes or about all i remember right again as judge bennett pointed out there is zero evidence that mr ross ever showed a single photo to caroline gonzales the only time he spoke to her was that thirty minute interview the context of that interview shows you no photos were shown to her violation that the court also reversed the district chord's denial of qualified immunity on a conspiracy claim thank you very much thank you both sides for the very helpful arguments this