the department of justice carries  i can't meet the five standard but i can say be exact same thing and say that that's a general public interest in how the prosecutors exercise their discretion and so this isn't a case where there have been you know any credible allegations of sort of about broader there's no reason to believe that a person is more than one hundred years old they've done all that they need to do and that's that really doesn't make sense because of how important privacy interest is and being associated with law enforcement files and and you would you mind starting out mr laurie explaining to me what the public interest in disclosure is here because i'm having trouble seeing how this wouldn't apply to virtually every criminal case comes down the road  well certainly the interest in disclosure has to do with whether the federal investigating and prosecuting agent in this case sought to persuade the state investigating and prosecuting agencies not to prosecute victor gloria who was the key government witness in the capital case against that but that's not a still case so you know it's not state law enforcement authorities regularly cooperate with one another and that that we know sir but we also know that cases can be of different strengths so maybe the federal prosecutor might say you know the case against gloria for the baltimore murder doesn't look so ironclad i don't and i don't know what you think that conversation is wrong  whether you're accusing actually the maryland authorities are doing something inappropriate by not prosecuting gloria i'm i don't know it's seems seems very brady oriented it seems like something that's been hashed over several times by the courts in the context of this case mr hicks case and so to draw the distinction between the public interest in making sure prosecutors always abide by brady that you know i don't know what to do well so well first of all i think the question that someone underlies this is the federal government help victor glor that got away with murder and i think having an answer to that question is certainly a legitimate public interest but i think also you know in the raaf decision the court that understanding the procedures and actions that lead up to death sentences and having a disclosure of all what happened in sort of a capital case before the actual execution takes place is a public interest and so i think that the district court did identify a legitimate legitimate public interest but if the court disagrees with that there is well i think that what we're talking about a capital case you missed two different i think it's different yes sure have federal prosecutors who are basically relaying information from victor gloria the gloria says they're pointing the finger at me for this reason and the federal  takes that information and tells baltimore hey this is what we think happened it's what they don't say it's what victor gloria told us they say this is what we think happened but it obviously came from victor gloria and victor gloria was never into that to the privacy interest there's no there's no question that that there are privacy interests involved for identifying information but the government always has the  years ago do you really think the government have to go in and say we think that the witnesses we talked to five years ago are still alive i'm probably not all right well  mean if you think some group of octogenarians were walking around the patuxent wildlife preserve twenty two years ago and today they'd be over a hundred i mean that's one thing but there this is the question of burden there is the prima facie showing is exactly when did the crime take place the people if they are still alive you would surely have a strong privacy interest in their personal identifying information and what worries me about what the district court is it really looks to me very much if you just record it was angry at the government for dragging its feet for a long period of time fair enough but i don't see anything in the foyer exemptions dragging you get to shut off the government's ability to provide information necessary to decide whether production is appropriate but the government should  address that then i think a reminder is necessary to address some other things as well partly with respect to separate ability which is an issue for both of these exemptions and the district court did not make any finding about secret ability so we can't we can't know really it really it has to be reversed on that basis for on an air appeal violent crime in a small oklahoma town and the court said that largely because it wasn't a case of any kind of organized crime effort that it was a it was a personal response to some situation that the crime itself was not going to be a basis for inferring confidentiality and then if you g the relationship between the source and the crime what the government has offered here is entirely conclusory about those relationships and there's also the second ability issue so all of provided singular information i e information that only one person could know support you could trace back that back to their identity and there's really not anything more that the government could do without revealing the identity of those sources and