but that if you agreed to be the prosecution's star witness and give testimony against mr horton my client he would get immunity he would not have his probation revoked the question is simply whether the failure of the prosecution to disclose that deal undermines the confidence in the ultimate jury verdict in this case had the deal  impeached him to establish that he lied under oath during the summary hearing is there anything the record that shows that the prosecutors were and had knowledge about this deal there's nothing more but the supreme court and miles in this court in subsequent cases have said it doesn't matter that the prosecutor is responsible for any deals that the police make with a witness whether the prosecutor knows about it or not  constitutional matter as a matter of the issues before this court it doesn't matter whether the prosecutor knew or not we'll never find out because the prosecutor is no longer alive but if the police off the deal and so far the only evidence in the record is that the police did offer precisely  important issues where the contested issues where the matters that affected the jury's deliberations the most and here we thought it extensively incited in the second amendment petition in our briefs the prosecutor kept emphasizing state that mr horton had reported to confess to the crime and then given details of the crime the way recounted that and asked the jury to convict based on that also testified as to the credibility of th plenary hearing about not having had a deal and he admitted he lied to defense counsel his testimony is essentially in comprehensible except for those parts of it mentioned yes in the first i'm going to respond to is the hammer because there is evidence that the hammer that supposedly was given by michael graham to mr horton was not even the murder weapon secondly there's evidence that other people have equal access to the hammer that belonged to mr dorn because both mr khan again and mr mclaurin lived at the shangri la lodge where that and quite a few other hammers using mr dorms testimony to create this story to save himself the jury would have reached a different result there were no the state could have called anthony wilson do any kind of gun mclaurin girlfriend anyone else who was supposed to leave there at the time of the planning discussion to corroborate mr mclaren testimony they didn't an adverse inference should be drawn from that there were other people purportedly present when these statements were made and none of them testify a and instead of robbing the victim if that was in fact what mr horton plans to do before he left he told mr mr government in fact they paid five or six hundred dollars to the victim supposedly according to mr lawrence purchased some cocaine the days before deciding there were four days of guilt phase deliberations the jury struggled with this but the jury also asked a question made of witnesses review police reports this is part transcript five forty one eighty the jury instruction that tells the jurors you cannot consider why other people may have not been prosecuted for their role in these crimes you have the jury instruction in which the jury was told the testimony dealt with fairly with police we don't we don't know who the police are we don't know whether we can look at them we've never had investigative funds for heav we don't there may be some evidence that in a police report but because the california supreme court denied us investigative fun we've never been able to look into this nor reserve the rest of my time he was afraid he was going to get in trouble for it so the jury was aware that he had previously lied to protect his own skin and the idea that he had also given a statement and exchange for an agreement is not so different from that kind of evidence which was evidence in this case which was substantial that there's a reasonable probability that the jury would have come to a different conclusion just talking about the evidence as far as the hammer goes there's really no in the crime the fact that there were three bags of cocaine two with powder one with rock all the bags had axes on them one with three axes and combined with the other evidence that already you i respectfully disagree with that reading of his closing argument i think mclaren was certainly an important piece of evidence but without the other evidence wouldn't have been credible at all if it were just my florence testimony know they struggled with this because there were four days in deliberation i don't think you can read much from a lengthy jury deliberations in any of them if the jury if the jury takes a short time it's because they rush to judgment and if they took a long time it's because they struggled with the accessory he was not an accomplice as a matter of law and yes that isn't reasonable based on the fa direct evidence linking mr horton to this crime there were no fingerprints as george lecture points out the hammer that was supposedly blood stand that was introduced in evidence had no blood paragraphs thirty four and fifty four of the amended petition show other problems with the chain of custody and establishing that the hammer was actually the murder weapon the while mr mclaurin may have been testifying based on what he was told if the jury knew that he had lied through her hearing and having strong motivation to lie to shift the blame from himself because after all he stated this declaration the police came to arrest as to his participation however the california supreme court characterized it and if you factor in as this court's cases in supreme court cases have said these additional motivations and had defense counsel have the remained in the custody at some point along the way when there was some point later on when the government put him in the same holding cell as mr horton which again he would been he had been out of custody and for some reason or other his probation was revoked criminal defense record the longest stretch of time mr mclaren was not in jail or being prosecuted was the period from shortly after this killing was committed the crime was committed until ninety six after everything was