we have here are three claims alleging of rape violations and while the state recognizes that brady violations or claims have to be viewed cumulatively because there were no brady violation and i believe that that's correct your honor and that's why i was here because there was no brian it wasn't you know i'm not understanding your argument then because you said they you admit that they didn't do a cumulative but there was no brady violation th don't you think changing the mileage and changing the time on the night of the murder from alternative suspect raises a suspicion and when you say that when you say the court carefully looked at it when i see statement relevant to a jury i think i think it would be relevant to the jury well the problem is we don't know who made the operations chief steve instead he made the alterations in their expert at the post conviction hearing concluded that it was five minutes one of the two officers in the town has his fingerprints on the electric box and that i do believe is in the record and i wonder why the prosecution didn't i don't know that they didn't your honor well let me bring it to to the to the issues in this case you were saying that there was a full disclosure of the logs and i'm sure that your brief said you would argue that it was up  defense to find the alteration doctrine whatever i'm wondering if that highest standard should apply in a situation where there is a an officer standard of what should be trying to over specifically concerning the last minute really saying that when you are a suspect you can provide something not not fully disclosed the alteration and leave it for the defendant to find  evidence created by police is that i am unaware of any cases in the country that has created such an exception to the same standard which of course raises the teeth argument that we raised in our brief let's avoid the v argument and come back to the notion that you are as the prosecution constructively charged with information in the hands of the police and in this case court to it as slowly or not the investigative focus also have the new one of them happens to be and maybe both of the suspects you are charged with their knowledge their knowledge was that they had made alterations that was not disclosed and so the idaho supreme court saying that the only new information that could be put there was the fact that the forensic experts came along therefore they didn't even get to the material anything doesn't seem to hold up why isn't it clear that  if a police officer has the information the fact that it may be in copa jory of the officer doesn't relieve the prosecution because you have an officer involved shooting and you're you know somebody is being shrewd you know charged with killing somebody and the officer actually is the one who fired the shot there's no question that the state has a duty to disclose that which the officers know but what i know what i'm saying and what i believe the district court did was actually expanded brady and expanded another case in the who any p u e which is the case that deals with the prosecutor correcting false information within the courtroom and that's what the conceded in their affidavit as their expert testified to the state evidentiary hearing that that's an obvious alteration if you give it to an expert it's but you disagree particularly with you your honor except for one of their primary offenses was police cover up and here's what the idaho supreme court said that said until they give her testimony was developed the relevance of the police logs for the night of murder was not readily apparent the logs were examined to verify which officer was on duty and which officer had filled in the daily log and could have been used to argue to the jury that not only did officer br commit the murder but that he was involved in a cover of to hide his involvement once they know that gifford puts brood on the streets later than was being wood becomes relevant up to that point they were simply looking at it to decide you know who was on duty and that's all they had reason to look at at that point and now they've got a witness who mean we know when the hole was touched then you might be able to do something about the fact that the alteration goes around the hole that we don't particularly know when the whole this tense wouldn't know when the whole was punched but the state that he will look at the scase and look at the misconduct in the case and look what fairness and justice requires other than doggedly pursuing a conviction  two officers at least the boston doctors the police mark which has the fact of making less likely that the deputy will be looked after maybe a little is totally innocent believe certainly makes it less likely he'll get those would certainly talk to the attorney general your honor and and i'm not before this court espousing the wonders of this investigation it was messed up from the beginning and that's why it took so doggone why does th y there were latent prints taken that day from the box at trial on this tour karczewski who is our state fingerprint examiner said there were four or five from the chief of police by the name of obvious we know that because the state intended to try to impeach mr geoffrey right before the post conviction hearing by showing him the logs the original logs and saying you can't be right because