about these three witnesses we don't know the specifics of that his post conviction petition states that he told counsel that witnesses in the bar could corroborate his self defense and the question is when did he tell he doesn't say but also this is a bar shooting in which there are somewhere between forty and fifty people in a bar the record indicates that nearly everybody there is either friends of the family that owns the bar or members of bat family and so interviewing those witnesses would are you really reveal the names of these people not everyone at the bar but all of the witnesses and a lot of the witness does at the trial or in fact related to because christiane had pushed him and according to these witnesses have thrown a bottle at him and mr mears and just testified that he was afraid he was going to be seriously injured at that point and that's why he fired four and he did not specifically sa i fired at the floor so i didn't want to hurt anybody i just needed to get back so i could get out and some of these witnesses testimony would have shed more light on the interaction between and would have provided more objective evidence of his belief in the need to use self defense so since it's only a first stage petition at this point it only has to be arguable pressure arguable that had counsel found these witnesses their testimony might have made a difference to the jury and this jury critically had rejected a lot of the state's case it had rejected the stings theory that testimony from three witnesses to support that to go to the aggravated discharge a firearm could easily have made a difference to this jury so i think we've shown at least arguable prejudice which at this stage proceedings is all that we need to show we don't need to show that ultimately the jury definitely frege a different verdict just that it could have made a difference to them and i let me make one last point and then i'll sit down so we cannot say that just because they all have been testifying about the shooting that it would have been cumulative but rather that this would have gone to the ultimate question before the jury whether  is the sheer chaos that was the shooting in the bar the witness so many witnesses there are so many different perspectives the state's witnesses themselves could not agree on some of the ways this and shooting unfold for instance a videotape angelus said that thomas moore was sharp before leonardo the drama which the other witnesses contradicted the witnesses couldn't agree on whether thomas moore and barstool during this confrontation with mr me interested in that area and then sustained a pretty significant beating from when the paramedics arrived he was unresponsive to any kind of stimuli he rides in the emergency room on mechanical ventilation he's put in a drug induced coma and the are even allowed to talk to him for four days because that seriously injured i assume given the chaos of the shooting the fact that he had been drinking and then his significant injuries i think the omission of this one detail is not i think here we have at least a couple of reasons to believe that it's arguable but we have found these witnesses first is the police reports and again that is something that you have the record does not affirmatively but that these investigation failure to investigate is looking at the failure to make a reasonable investigation what counsel is asking here are the people maintaining goes beyond a reasonable investigation we lots quite a few we don't have exact numbers of people there so a reasonable investigation where do we draw the line do that she should go investigate and i agree we find out perhaps at the second stage the police whether they were identified as being in attendance i am not aware your honor would we find out the second thing that would be something you do find out at the second stage but at this stage you still have to make obviously the defendant with able to attend to this was in a closed event this was a public public place where people came and went and it's claimed that council failed to investigate three people the judge could now make the credibility determination at this point and as i said your honor i just believe the post conviction judge mentioned that they were contradictory that was something that we credibility determination that is made at a later stage witnesses who were there and asking them who else did you see did you see anybody else you know tell me everybody you saw who was there which is probably the sort of thing that there are a police investigation would involved as well and so i think the police having told him about these three witnesses defendant says in his petition that he told his attorney that there were people at the bar who could write a self defense he does not mean them by