at this point what has changed that actually nothing looking at the same statement from the same individual supporting the same claims procedurally and we've moved from the first stage to the second stage so the standard is different and the standard at the second this case i'm really disputed the state doesn't seem to be arguing on those points and so i'm going to focus on whether it was material and whether it was so complicit it was likely to change the result on retrial materiality it dangles that speaks to what is material not merely cumulative saying that it's cumulative only that has nothing to what was already before the trial or that and in this case it as funny the information guy statement was not before the trial in this case it contradicts what w ccountability there it was not the principle in this case for various guidelines guy statement his affidavit and his testimony in his own trial she just there was no preconceived plan no intent to go out and commit the shooting that it was a spontaneous act of self defense and this court recognized that prior decision in this case and the appeal from the summary dismissal it's this court also recognize it's difficult then to see how the information in guy statement would not present new questions for the trier of fact being is that his statement speaks directly to the intent and then intent is directly relevant to whether or not for itself cole is accountable guy statement is that he they pulled up at this intersection he sees for various crises the door open the driver's door open being first to see the vin jerk as though it's being put into park he sees the door open he sees what he believes is a gun in the  responsibility for the shooting is essentially proved by the location of the car where he stopped his car in relation to where the van was stopped and by his behavior after the shooting in driving away and then past the you know the crosswalk line need to stop and he was inching up and in winter we don't drive exactly the same office time the position of the car is not enough to show a specific intent here especially when considered again we have to be looking at what was the evidence at trial and now what do we have that's neil and in considering those things together is there a question that should be put to the crier back here can a better determination of guilt be made in we present august court it wasn't the question for the trial for the question is is it of such a character that it's likely to change the outcome and i would submit that it is it's which is guy's testimony this was self defense exactly when you're saying th testimony along with positioning of the car testimony of the moment it's likely to change the outcome here what we had before guys customer he was essentially relying on the positioning of the car to show the difference in time and we defended the accountable first in this case convicted of first degree murder and the actual shooter convicted of second degree because he was able to testify at his own trial to what his intent was or passenger in the van who also testified at the epic upon israel that in fact the driver did open his door in just prior to when the shooting started this was spontaneous self defense if we look at what guys evidence it's material evidence it's a very significant evidence in this case as to what the intent was to have the funding be accountable he had to have the subjective desire the subjective intent to aid this guy's testimony goes directly to that point directly to whether or not the defendant was accountable whether they're planned that they intend to do this or did it just happen this testimony is that it was spontaneous it just information was presented presumably in most cases so what we're looking at here is whether or not mr ford made a substantial showing of actual innocence but that's our standard and we need to look at different stage successive petitions or disfavor and that's clear from the case it's clear from having the additional requirement that you get leave to file the standard is different edwards did not address the standard for s titians edwards didn't change the standard and even talk about the standard that wasn't the procedural posture in that case we're still talking about substantial shop so in that regard it's different in terms of reliability should we be looking at reliability we're talking about credibility that we think and credibility is the third stage determination again in the case thought has been clear in this state first stage second stage we have to take as true accountable defendant who was fighting filed the p c headed initially made a statement that well yeah this was a game retaliation shooting and we have this plan to go over to this other you know his apartment building or something and shoot somebody brought back here until after wards out hole was tried convicted sentenced he didn't have control over that so the timing is it's not something that he could have done anything about and i s significance of what various guys saying and what he said it is on trial that it is consistent with the statement is that we didn't find this with a spontaneous act of self defense i fear for my life i fear for course of course life and i reacted to that and whether or not we will every believe its state how credible is that doesn't cover the stage it doesn't come at the stage we're at the second stage that is an assessment to be made at the third stage