the position are not set for the colorable claim of actual innocence and it is well established that a that actual innocence involves evidence that is there were discovered and material includes so the questions are is it new could have changed the result on retrial defendant testified that he wasn't there a guy who said that he that he left the scene the murder occurred he later found out about the murder and then in a as an r t s there abbott there are witnesses who came forward who said i saw the murder the defendant wasn't there this is new evidence that there saying he was there it was it was just it was sort of and then some of that evidence was impeached by grand jury testimony and so this is really a very new sort of counter narrative to what was presented by the state saying that we saw this person named mike or this person with graves there  was not the one who committed the crime that he doesn't know what happened that he left to be found out that the murder and there was evidence that implicated him but again this is a strong counter narrative that's and robert's adam's testimony was not cumulative because it's really presenting new evidence and it's very much like california he knew that adams had been arrested this but he didn't go to the police because he thought that he didn't have any new information that would be helpful then when he moved back from california he discovered that adams had been convicted by hip hop that he would get in trouble if you want to the police then on walk out that night she was walking down the street and she saw someone that she was by the name of mike hitting a woman with a bat she was scared of mike she was afraid that mike would kill her if she came forward and so she didn't she didn't see adams that night that mother's house that night and adams knew that she was there she was inside the house when she heard an argument outside she saw adams's mother go and tell adams to go home or to leave and then adams hopped into his car and drove away now still on the street than w terence adams his brother who is with it from a trial and the victim on the baker they were arguing also on the street was turned his friend mike and mike then it rama baker with a bat terence threatened bridget rush and said that he would kill her if she talked to the police and so she didn't have prior to trial both the police and adams tried to talk to her and try to learn her story was trying to find out what if anything it's in and she wouldn't talk to anyone she didn't she didn't cooperate with either side and so nobody knew what she affidavits are really classic actual innocence affidavits and that these are very much like our chief these are people that adams would have no reason to know had any information about the crime and he would have no reason to know that he should be questioning trial so how is her evidence neil really discovered you mean yes it's newly discovered because the adams didn't know what she'd actually see and he knew that she was there that night but neither side really had any information from her he didn't know if she was still there or the type of the murder he didn't know she had seen anything he had no idea what she had what she had seen she was definitely a potential witness absolutely but she wasn't necessarily a true eyewitness because neither side knew what she was seeing so the best that anyone c do would be to subpoena her on a fishing expedition but she wasn't sure but she wasn't even cooperate at all she was afraid and so she didn't come forward so it's a different category definitely from a hard into the article where adams had no reason to know if they'd seen anything he did have that perhaps brigitte had some information but if she wasn't cooperated there was that the only thing she could do would be to go to subpoena her on a fishing expedition which neither the state nor adams did and so they sort of waited for her to come forward now she he wouldn't know if she had if she was still there if she had left by then if she had seen anything if she wasn't talking there is just no way for him to learn what she did what she had seen if she had seen anything and he did try to talk to and say tried to talk to or both sides did and  she didn't tell the police anything she didn't tell out of the city and so she was sort of just this black box that was not explaining anything until she came forward now and so the set the evidence is not just it is not just newly discovered it's also material the state says that they actually contradict adam's testimony this isn't true so look at adams testified that he drove away found him at the arcade with but the victim drove away learned later that she was murdered so he drove away then she was murdered that's precisely what of the witness testimony there was a lot going on on the street they happened to go by saw the murder didn't see adams that is exactly on all fours with adams's testimony that he wasn't there at the time of the murder there's no reason that they would have seen him they're just saying we were hanging out there for fifteen minutes a half hour an hour beforehand they're saying we went by saw the murder her there is no reason they would have seen that in fact it would have been directly contradictory to adam's testimony if they had seen him because he said that he wasn't there at the time of the murder  basketball he knew exactly where that it was mr adams it's unclear how often they played basketball together i think a set of many neighbors know each other by sight but don't know each other personally and would recognize each other also the person that he  never seen a photo of adams where he wasn't bald he's been bald consistently from arrest through his friend idea see photos and so the person he saw whether he knew whether he could say that he saw adams or not he definitely knew that the assailant was not adam's and he didn't see somebody who had a strong reason and adams his brother had a strong reason not to implicate himself in this and now we have somebody we have after the affianced for implicating mike terence's friend saying that terrence was threatening them that much that they were afraid of mike and they were afraid of terrorists and that's wh the coming forward it's also interesting to note that there was no physical evidence tying adam's to this crime which would have been extremely bloody crime that state's evidence was that she was bludgeoned to death with a bat and the story that the state presented was that adam beat her to death with a bat and immediately half into his car but the state presented no evidence of any d n a nothing from the victim found in his car at his person on his clothes and so even though this crime would have been extremely bloody there was nothing physically connecting him to  said that the defendant was there at the scene of the crime but that he didn't actually participate in the crime and the edwards court found that that was not actually that that couldn't change any result and retrial because he was found guilty under accountability so if he's there if the advantage saying that he was there that actually helps the state that doesn't help him at all what we have here is quite different what we have here is really a true classic classic actual innocence claim where these people are coming forward saying that they saw someone else  it and again it's essential to stress here that all adams is asking for is leave to file he's not asking for evidentiary hearing he's not asking for a new trial those are so far down the road he hasn't even he still has to go to the second stage to make a substantial showing i don't think that he provided ample detail even in the affidavit if they don't provide why hampel detail was missing shown me well actually the burden is on the defendant to shout th diligence we have essentially these two people that in determining times again in determining decided to come forward we don't know why or when these times where we know that one of them was in california for some of this basketball with him just that he'd seen him at some point playing basketball and knew that his nickname was tag and that he knew the tape based on what happened many years earlier present the murder i'm based on the fact that he drove by and now we're not we're not judging the credibility of the the appian at this stage with mr williams said he witnessed the murder it was the defendant he didn't tell  went to california he came back he found out the defendant with kobe that he still didn't kill and now he's coming forward you know you don't think that that is enough to show that the defendant didn't know until he the substantive evidence they still have the state's attorney is testifying to what they previously said before the grand jury and then in contrast to that you now have two people who clearly and newly discovered one maybe not newly discovered the two that clearly newly discovered who say someone else other than the defendant committed the crime law is that a person who is in this should not be convicted there is evidence to show that he's innocent and that evidence should be reviewed there are so many standard doesn't make a colorable client i don't know what standard if you're thinking about but the standard that i see is much different than the one that you're talking about and we disagree as to how to reach out where and there's nothing that probability that it is more likely than not thank you very much thank you just we're going to break for just a couple of minutes we'll be right