with those murders and this trial began five point five years after his arrest and january of twenty fifteen so we have two issues that we raise in this appeal both are the least tangentially related to th late prejudiced his ability to have a fair trial and prior to the due process of law as far as a reasonable doubt claim goes it is very fact heavy and we discussed it in the breeze so i'm just going to quickly dance the defendant has the burden to prove or to show that the delay caused the actual in substantial prejudice to his ability to have a fair trial if you save to do this the burden shifts to the state to show that the delay was reasonable the different times for were very very favorable plea deals one of them was unable to remember when or where this confession happened that would be carlos escalante i the taming work records because they had to seven years they were destroyed and after fourteen years it would be extremely difficult to come up with any other way to prove they asked him to come up with another coworker who might say yes on not write down the name of the informant and one of the he tried to get attacked from him more than fourteen years later while carrying while they were preparing to take the defendant to trial after he was charge no longer have any recollection as to who said that to him but didn't they give the exact names of the individuals and where they lived and did you or defense ever search for those people they didn't g besides if you read they wouldn't really be the important witness to find because they are highly unlikely to come in and testify yes we did commit the murder and not the fantasy it's the informant who we wanted because the informant could have beyond that would it be admissible or not that confidential informant knew and isn't then in order for that testimony to be admissible he would have had to been there or had another case and was facing trial there and then the put the state to elect to go on that the other case first so i think with all of that i think it would be understandable by my takes a little time the police may not give wanted to or the prosecution may not have decided to charge doesn't impeach a jury's decision to believe the testimony prosecutors make those decisions all the and you know and including this conversation that we're talking about i think there's a lot of interest in this case and so i think that it's safe to say that the defendant is not the only conceivable sorts for this sort of even though they were intended to be the defendant some way shape or form and they didn't think it was necessary to bring a gun and that they were on friendly terms it doesn't necessarily mean that they were going to meet him if he was going to kill them he already had he was going to go  would very patiently and quietly just home right here on the essence and legal argument and explain it or offer an alternate theory or tell me why my argument is good not good and sometimes when they were really complicated did you know all of us are civil servants and we all work within this judicial system real understand the rules you know sometimes when sometimes we lose most of the time your firm sometimes your reverse and we go receive forty thousand dollars from the government for relocation ok but we know that and the jury knew that and they know they're all being guys and they know they all think al kinds of perks and they do s witnesses so first of all it's not consistent with some of the other testimony because june twentieth said his brothers were going out to meet with the defendant f again speculation argument whatever if the defendant was in the front passenger seat i thought i had read somewhere that he said he didn't move to the back seat to do the drug deal for shouldn't drive there was no longer in the driver's seat because the do not is your friend in the back seat and one of the was curled up in one of them was sitting on some kind of a stool had been knocked over if you look at the pictures so nobody was in the driver's seat so if the defendant also had moved back to the to the see did he had if he's sitting here one of the selection was across from him i guess i didn't think about this i would have to go back and look at the pictures of the van and men and for these reasons we do have the people we have this is the bottom line the trial court had ruled that the state was to produce the name of the confidential informant right fly i don't know what else fourteen years later of course that they can do it and they do want to say that there was a fifteen a fifteen month gap between the time when the defendant did receive the information i wanted he said to go around and start looking for the thing because the state waited fourteen years to prosecute him just to hope that this guy would forget exhaustion it's how does that measure up how do you justify that is a good faith effort to attempt to find the identity of this confidential determined somebody went out and tried to find these guns and only know that because it's in the record it was in the record and nobody remembered there was a hearing directly to kind of the pages if you know and chant and remember and in this situation we ask you to give it a good luck because of the fact that we have a a quantity rather than quality problem with the witness testimony because it was all very flawed and there is or himself or whether it was somebody that the cia operative led the defense to somebody did see it so that that doesn't apply if there was a witness to the to the shootings maybe one of these two guys mentioned possibly yes and and again these two guys you know who in one thousand nine hundred three supposed to be committed double murder then returned to chicago the the idea that anybody would be able to find of without having somebody like this