one indicated that the shooter they saw came from the right side of the street the other indicated that he came from the left side of the street one indicated that he was dressed all in black the other indicated that he was dressed in blue shorts and a white future one indicated that they stopped and that somebody walked up to a house with some iraqi refugees and spoke with them and then they drove to the appointed meeting place where there was to be a drug deal consummated the others and that there was never  the one thing that these two witnesses i'm speaking of williams and partly agreed upon is that they were unable to identify the shooter because he was but he the governor's face and they were able to identify that was the only thing which this reflects later upon the identification of the one witness who testified prior to trial as to the identification of the defendant and he didn't identify him buying physical characteristics he simply said it unreliable in part because of the status of the witness in this case i'm speaking of lin wood who had a prior conviction he was not under oath when he gave the statement and he clearly had motive to give a statement  else because the time of the statement one day after the incident he showed up because his friend had been called to the police station and he was seeking to get him released from jail at that time he had  motive to testify that it was somebody other than who police suspect conversed like there is no motive that has been shown in this case for the defense there is nothing to indicate his involvement other than the lone witness saying that's who i saw the same when two other witnesses said that you wouldn't be able to identify that part of the reason for that i say that there was no motive is that the lone other piece of evidence that possibly connects the defendant is the allegation that he had a phone number that was used to contact the victim in this case but that one both ways there were approximately twelve calls i believe the stay counted thirteen twelve and those calls went in both directions they were from the defendant they were from the victim if the victim was contacting the defendant then it stands to reason that it wasn't a hostile series of exchanges that these two knew each other so so to the extent that it shows that they were in contact there is nothing to show that there was any sort of attack by the defendant in this cause as appears to be that they're ok but that phone connection as i say is rather tense because all that there was the testimony of shuttleworth later recanted the trial that that phone belonged to the defendant when the phone records were brought in and representatives of the corporation i believe sprint testified they were unable to indicate who tell was it was just shuttleworth saying that you recognize that own as being the defendants to the extent that it shows that it was the president's phone there was nothing to indicate that it was the defendant making the phone calls there's nothing to indicate from where the defendant was making the phone call and there's nothing to show with the subject of those phone calls what those are the two sole connections between the defendant and the instant case that one defendant or i'm sorry that one witness out of four who had someone reliability issues to begin with said this is the person who did and again he had motive to point the thing away from the person was initially being questioned by the police one of the people involved in this drug deal discussion by the reviewing court as to evidence that seemed to possibly corroborate the judge's determination as to the reliability of witness but arcos distinguish that away by noting that there was nothing to that the standard of review is that we're to look at this in the light most favorable to the state what i'm asking is that this court not let itself be blinded by there is nothing here that is sufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the best sort of proof of that or support for that argument comes from a contrast with the cases presented by the stay in each of which there existed other corroboration and other things to support that case rests the best example of that is the well known columns standard and collins in re reading through that i was interested to note that the witness made these claims and part of the support or in the the witnesses statement in that case was that the police were able with his direction to find the gun that had been thrown into lake michigan and it surprises me and given the condition of the it was founded obviously been there for a while the fact that he could leave them that clearly and they could find a gun in lake michigan that had corresponding lancing rooms and could be identified as possibly being the sufficient and substantial robber a shoe in craig i believe it was there were sixteen shell casings left at the scene several of them were found to match the gun that the defendant had that he later threw out of the window during one of it has been held repeatedly and it should be that it is sufficient to have one eye witness if that evidence is if that witness him self is is credible and if his testimony is possible well here there's an extreme lack of credibility with the witness who is friend was a suspect in this who himself was involved in a drug deal that perhaps shaded or covered his dealings with the police and then we look at the question of whether the testimony is possible and usually in that context question is is there enough between the description that is given and the defendant himself to tie them together barnes is an example that the state used in its brief and in arms the defendant had some unusual characteristics if i had a white nose he had some scars on his face and it was that as much as anything that led the court to to in any way measure what they were being told by palm it was simply i am certain it was simply this is what i saw and this is the person who did it given the extreme lack of credibility given the dark of connections between the defendant and the offense there was no physical evidence that was able to tie the defendant to the same again there were no other witnesses and there were witnesses who brought into question the ability to identify given the dearth of evidence this simply does not amount to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and for those reasons if there are no questions i would ask that this or reverse the defendant's conviction  and shuttleworth was initially a suspect is the big point here here that statement was videotaped in play for the jury so the jury got to make the credibility determination that we asked yours to make such a statement can support a conviction even with out corroborative evidence although there was that here that's great at all every case i've mentioned in my argument i've cited in the brief if it meets section one fifteen asked him point one's criteria no further analysis jury decides its weight there are no votes in quotes suspect categories of evidence the same standard or her view aptly the standard that favors the state the common standard of wise to all the mccarter he said subs substantively admitted prior inconsistent statements are considered the same as direct testimony from the witness and accorded weight based on the same factors as direct testimony here detective mcdaniel said lin wood picked the defendant from the line up as the shooter obviously who is saying the shooter no longer had great linwood see this all video statement he said he knew the shooter again he's not again if i'm some stranger and he identified the person on the porch and that was shuttleworth and the defendant shooter at trial little would even admitted seeing the defendant around the neighborhood before obviously again he's identified a guy he knew he knew him from years back by nickname and claim he then he claimed he identified him in the lineup only as the one others said  would try to if i might characterize weasel out of his testimony at trial the jury obviously knew that was a b s explanation and rejected returning to the d v d of linwood statement he said he recognized to defend his face he saw what happened with his own eyes he said the shooter was stone or stone rests rather than most perseverant we all hear a problem with a long pole in whatever case he said he was in the car right behind the victim and saw the victim g the police at that time were not aware of any drug situation as there was no evidence that lid would or palmer only had told them of that by this point that he implicated himself in a possible drug offense through his testimony somewhat bolster truthfulness of his statement in any case this is for the jury to decide moreover the defendant and the victim were in frequent phone caught contact in the hour before the shooting shuttleworth in his substantively admitted prior inconsistent statement which was played for the jury once again identified the defendant's phone number was never contradicted the police of the victim's phone number there were thirteen calls there's talk about there being six calls involving other numbers but there were thirteen calls between the defendant and the victim's fault in the hour before the shooting of itself that doesn't mean much together with the shooting in an eyewitness who says he did it in an eyewitness who identified the defendant in the police lineup together with those two bits of evidence that significant they were quickly in close contact the common standard i'm telling you you know nothing you don't know you look at the evidence and like most favorable to the people the prior inconsistent statements here were fully proper evidence and nothing like that happened here this is a straightforward case the jury believe the video statements the jury believe the defendant shot the victim the defendant's argument is truly with respect one made more progress plea to the trier of fact and to the court there's no evidence anyone else shot the victim we're not saying obviously the court's power must reverse a conviction based on recanted testimony we're saying that under the column standard the appellate court should not hear where the jury saw to videotape pri but it is not needed and here we have corroborative evidence in addition to the witness on the video statement saying at the event that we have the phone calls and we have the officers testimony that the witness also hit the defendant the jury even saw the video statements and you know your honour's in a way it's almost like we're returning to the arguments defense used to make in rape cases you know you had to have an extra good case for a rape conviction to stay in evidence had to be corroborated while the court get away with it as we all know you know decades ago similarly prior inconsistent statement prior inconsistent statement evidence is perfectly good evidence here happily it was videotape jury saw and under the very favorable to the prosecution out of standard thirteen of them and that together with an eye witness identification of him on the video statement and picking the defendant your argument is that phone calls there are a nice extradition obviously there were no strangers and this is a drug transaction you know the inference and you know juries are to draw inferences from the facts you know obviously it was a drug case that was somebody was being set up or something was going wrong but to gather with all of itself it w for the most part the state higher in the agreement is the framework and way in which case you are interpretations are a little bit different so there are just two or three points that i would like to touch upon and the first is that let's assume for a minute that this was not in a prior inconsistent statement that was simply part of the evidence of the product and i think if you look at it in that light and agree with the state for a moment that there is no qualitative difference between a prior inconsistent statement has recanted and says it's going to trial had this statement simply been given a trial or argument still would be that is insufficient given the balance of the other evidence for a finding that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in that case of his just one of the four possible eyewitness identifications you have one statement picking the defendant out under circumstances where the other witnesses who were in the exact same location at least two of them were as that witness said we couldn't identify and one of those witnesses homily was also presented with a photo lineup with a picture that included the defendant and was not able to if the defendant out of that so in that instance you have one witness three others even in the light most favorable to the state and given as well the prior convictions of linwood and the circumstances of two other witnesses saying he couldn't be identified because he would be over his head it was late at night even in the summer it was such that identification can be had and this brings into great question whether or not the pentagon and proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that's the suman that you place recanted testimony on a par with trial testimony and again it is our position that unarguably i not the same and it is not the equivalent it is that method it certainly can be allowed but you have to bring into question the fact that he's not willing under oath to say this is who did that he may have made that statement before but he had reason to do so and motive to do so or and again those statements bring into question otherwise if you take the state's argument and extrapolate that he centrally with the state has said in its brief is that this evidence can even be questioned it was admitted so it was proof liable enough to go before the jury the jury believed it and so now at this stage this court is not empowered to review the question but in each of the cases that the s that there was sufficient evidence there was other of that was robert of evidence there were more eye witnesses there weren't hundred actions between the eye witness the street and the testimony that was all present here in this case another comment that i want to briefly address is that the state argued that the phone number was never contradicted but that's not the defendant's burn and even if it were i'm not sure how the defendant contradicts that and we prove a negative i not something with which i'm familiar in this case the state was not able to provide evidence directly tie the phone to the defendant even though the corporation that provides that phone came into testified they didn't have evidence as to