PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

HAEG: Well when I can show that the search warrants – see I've been doing my research
– when the search warrants bad it's called the poisonous tree.
OSTERMAN: Fruit of the poisonous tree. But here's the situation. The Court of Appeals
is only going to go back to what they can clearly identify as being the wrong feature in your case
that produced all the wrong results.
HAEG: Well wasn't that one of them
OSTERMAN: No.
HAEG: Why not
OSTERMAN: Because the – the real problem occurred for you when you made all these
confessions and handed them –uh- the keys to the crime, ok And the search warrant was before
that.
HAEG: Ok but doesn't – I mean so what your saying is once – but this – hey ...
OSTERMAN: The fruit of the poisonous tree applies...
HAEG: Ok just hang on
OSTERMAN: Ok.
HAEG: If Brent Cole did this ineffective assistance of counsel by having me do that
confession it goes back to there – the confession never happened.
OSTERMAN: Right but it's my understanding the search warrant was issued before the
confession or am I wrong on the timeline
HAEG: No that's – that's – you're correct but why can't you – if – if people committed
perjury and other things that you could have used at your trial or defenses – we pointed out to
Brent Cole that – that the search warrants were wrong over and over again. He didn't use that
isn't that – isn't that [ineff] – would a normal attorney...
OSTERMAN: Would it be ineffective assistance of counsel for the attorney to know that
the warrant was defective and failed to challenge it It depends on the – now you – here you got
the Court of Appeals thinking.
HAEG: Yeah.
OSTERMAN: Depends upon the strategy – did the strategy of the search warrant
(indecipherable) that the challenge could be made effectively that in such a way or is the – the
lack of this evidence goanna cause you any greater problems in the long run.
139