only exception to the right to put on that offenses that the ten duly has arrested institutional safety or there is another non arbitrary reason for denying the prisoner the right to call his witnesses or to put on his documentary evidence here nobody has ever claimed that there was any institutional security reason for denying mr graves the right to call his witnesses and put on his documentary evidence wh confidential informant he asked if there was a confidential informant because if there were a confidential informant even without knowing that person's name it would lend support to his  that there could clearly be an institutional safety reasons for not providing it not necessarily in every case but in fact but that might cause witnesses were denied and that's not what he was asking for counsel under wolf though he's not entitled to irrelevant confidential or unnecessary information right yes ok so in this particular case the yes h o o's denial of his request to call officers i want to be sure i get this right mccoy medals and schama he didn't demonstrate didn't offer any proof as to what these evidence could do what evidence they could provide that was relevant that weren't present during the search for the stowaway had no information pertaining to his cell well but the evidence shows now i think we have to step back for a minute and realize that mr graves has never had an opportunity and any court in any system in any prison hearings to put on any evidence he's made that in effect there are no rules of evidence there's no no basically a prisoner can allege whatever he or she wants can say whatever they want is a title that anyone says they want and just spit it out see whatever they can find as i would you're  and they are denied that that they have to proffer of what they think they're going to prove by having the person here that part of the obligation of the prisoner in this case you want to if it's unclear in th practice and at that point even if it was random they're searching not only mr graves materials in the cell but then they're also searching the cell mates so they would both be taken away had the interview with the investigative employee before the hearing and at that point he did have the rules violation for it was given to him on i believe april twenty second and he had his interview with us tonight of twenty on may fifteenth so at that basis and they don't always tell because they did something they may have other motivations and it would not have changed the outcome and i'm not sure that you've answered my question counsel you told me that the prisoner was aware know what the position was before the hearing but does under the state's position does the prisoner have an obligation if he or she wants to have a witness produced and testify and the obvious to a hearing officer but when you have because otherwise there's going to be no information concerning how it's relevant and if there's no information and scrutiny on the record either through the rules violation report or given by the inmate as to how that particular witness would be relevant you could have an inmate calling twenty different witnesses to explore twenty different defenses none of which might even go to the issue at hand do any of the state's regulations require the prisoner to do that i mean it makes sense report that sergeant row had to testify that any all four of those officers would have written a report and so they were all reporting officers according to the allegations made the other important part about the proffer is that investigating employ never interviewed these witnesses so obviously it would have been virtually impossible to make a profit is what they would have testified to in the end mr graves has alleged that the hearing officer at the initial part of the hearing in july the this out mr graves refused and his allegation is that the hearing was there and just it's they just closed down the hearing and backdated the papers now those allegations he didn't have to make a proper because the hearing officer had already found they would testify and it was only afterwards that the hearing officer found when mr graves had no opportunity to make any proper at that point that the hearing officer found that they had if that the reason he wanted to spell maybe it's because the cell mate would say that the only thing searched had been the fan which shows it wasn't a random search where they were just going through all the property but that was probably based on the c s i it was pinpointed to the fan so those are the four witnesses and if you know that it was a confidential informant who said that he was selling our contacts in the prison and then therefore they search something else there is something in addition mr graves could have done and that's not unusual for criminal type proceedings we can't always get our client for you everybody's like everything he's claiming and somebody put this in the firm which we've only told him it was granted but never gave it to him and so he was never seen it and it wasn't present at that disciplinary hearing and some know the hearing officer who just cited this case have never seen it and that's one of his complaints that's the other component spent in prison for thirty years and this was the first time related to any drugs death at all after thirty years i mean that alone make that kind of what after thirty years is the side to start digging dealing drugs