where he allegedly threatened someone to burn their black arm off and that was correct in the reply brief in fact that extrinsic evidence that complainant was going to testify about a racial stop i apologize i question was not made more clearly in a reply in the reply br honour's i think there are two issues that arise out of the suppression hearing in this case the first is the disclosure of the lack of disclosure of o c c complaints relating to office of a start the second is a confrontation clause violation by refusing to allow the defense to call a complainant and a strange witness to testify about the bias of office or to start i'd like to begin with the disclosure of the o c c complaints because i think this problem involves important policy concerns that this court address my client mr corbin was caught in an interstitial area an area not well covered by nine so going to three if he was facing a case a federal case where federal agents were testifying against him state case and it was sting officers who were testifying against mr corbett there was california authority the pitches case and the federal excuse me the california rules of evidence which make it clear the disclosure is mandated but what we have here really a state offense and it was state officers that came into federal court and there is simply no authority there is no structure that has been set up by this court to deal with that situation and porn doesn't apply for my point  will concede that he had no control over the personnel files of this state officer officer bossart and of course the california rules of evidence and pictures don't apply for we were in federal court driving at one of the implications of what you're saying you  implications are that i think that regardless of how this is on whether the o c c complaint should have been determined that we do need some guidance on procedure necessary for this increasingly common situation for example for example in every case where there's a state  appears in federal court for suppression hearing what is a procedure by which the defense can of painting what is characterized as brady or bagging material how does the defense of taking federal googly material when there's a state officer comes in a federal court  said do not go to bias others said it precluded under four or three analysis but i said i never saw the complaints and so i had no way to evaluate or to argue and i have several contacts but they were relevant are you saying that federal law should enable you to take a look at all of them is that what your court my name is chris that's going to represent the united states i'd like to begin by addressing the issue raised by defense counsel and i would suggest to the court that what happened in the district court was not novel and it is well supported by this court relating to those witnesses i believe that the defendant's request and the subpoena was filed under seal by the district court on september sixth of two thousand and one and should be part of the clerk's record at nineteen and twenty and you'll see if you look at that that the defendant requested the district court to do is to conduct an end camera review of the documents before disclosing them so it was common ground before the district court between the defense and the government and the district court that the appropriate for seizure to apply was an in camera review by the district court and then a determination by the district court whether or not the materials were brady or giggly oh and that procedure was well supported by this court's authority that's the procedure that the court authorized and and then again and could that now the defendant's argument that somehow we're in a gap where there is no law in the area is incorrect because then thorny can bet could that were based upon the due process principles at issue in brady and a due process clause applies to the records that are in the possession of the state as well as to the records in the possession of the federal government so at issue here is the application of the brady principle that the defendants entitle to any documents that have in peace with value or are exculpatory and that's the standard that this record applied when you have a case like this involved estate officer let me back up a bit when you have a case like this involving a federal officer and there are issues raised as to the credibility of the federal officer based on some kind of allegations of racial bias or whatever do you have routine access to the personnel records of the federal agencies that might be involved or the f b i the  we get whatever whatever is in that personnel file that has anything to do with credibility or could be exculpatory in a manner so you see in a federal case what you didn't see in this case because the state case our policy with respect to state agencies we when we interview the witness es we do ask them the question of whether or not there's been any legal or ministre of determination that they were incredible any credibility findings that went against them but that's through we have an oral colloquy with the with the witness at that time so that your federal witness is you have an opportunity to make a judgment of your own as to whether this officer is credible or not based on all of the stuff and if you were to find a file nine feet thick convincing you that the officer for some reason was biased against a person because that person's said to the state agency for example in this case we'd like to see the personnel files the way we see the personnel files in federal cases where they show them to you know your honor and the reason and i think it's important to point out is the reason is that under california  misconduct are part of the personnel file those are confidential if you seek a waiver from the officer i don't believe so your honor by not my understanding is that i mean the confidential ality provision you know no attempt for you to take a look at it we're flying blind here we don't know what we're talking about of course we presume the good faith of the district court in looking at all this kind of stuff but it seems to me that it might be a good idea for the federal government to take a look at this the same way it does federal officers i think there are limitations on the ability of the federal government to look at personnel files of federal law you might not want to file a case if the officer says i'm not going to let you look at my personnel file me other side is jumping up and down  side to get the stuff i don't know if a state court would have jurisdiction to do that i mean what typically happens in these cases i do think it's the most efficient way is the defense files rules that and things appear and asked for all the documents they  can't be revealed because of all kinds of state law stuff and it comes out of federal court as far as i can tell the district court unloaded a whole bunch of us stuff on to both of you it is not going through any pictures to review but this report reviewed the files  so i don't think the court file the stuff that was turned over the same kind of stuff you just described is not subject to released by state agencies because of all the rules involving the confidentiality of complaints as well as officers that's right here on the federal court got it  and you'll see that what the court was concerned with is that there's a lack of foundation for any of the allegations for example the testimony of mr mitchell would have been that he was stopped for no reason by author of a start and he believed that the reason he w i understand all of the problems but i also don't think we've necessarily found the solution i think i see i see your point your honor and i do think that if there's a pattern of conduct that becomes slightly different i think you need to look at each  allegation whatever that allegation might be to see what the foundation is the problem here is that there is simply no foundation no evidence of racial bias with mr mitchell now if you had several complaints all the same i don't think my analysis would change because it's not so i think it's particularly important in this context to cloud this court standard in the united states versus ray and look for some foundation for the allegation before allowing it to be the father of cross examination if you are young i think that just try to sort of exactly the point that i am trying to drive home and it is my experience that in response to a wall seventeen c subpoena by the defense these materials are routinely and automatically disco disclosed to the