beginning is mr masters actual innocence claim my client was convicted of murder at sixteen years old without any physical evidence tying him to the crime without any statements and without even an explanation for why he may kill his close childhood friend and then run into rival gang territory at trial the state's case rested entirely on two eyewitnesses precisely the kind of evidence police they tell the state's attorney you've got the wrong guy this case has never made sense now dad because now we have a mountain to newly discovered evidence idea your honor you can consider this statement was sworn under the penalty of perjury it was taken by an officer of the third and the only reason it doesn't have a nursery stamp is because she was incarcerated at the time and  discretion how you want to consider the statement and here where you just warning to the penalty of perjury where she thought she was speaking under the penalty of perjury which is the important thing and her statement is corroborated by the other witnesses in the details are also crabber it by the state's witnesses at trial there we have proof that this is a reliable statement but to the extent that there are questions of reliability because of the lack of notary i think i met him that concerned and her statement is corroborated by a second state witness john oliver who confirms what she says that both she and the other state eyewitness were high and drunk at the time of the shooting and then for the admitted to him that they did not see the shooter's face when he to the state's attorney to the jury and he did not have the burden of living that at that time she admits she never saw the shooter space she admits that they were both drunk and high at the time of the shooting and as we discussed john allen's corroborates that they were drunk and high and that they didn't see the shooter that that's what the report was doing we can grow roots of it where it's this order on page ten the welfare finds michelle's got credible and uses that as the basis to reject andrea thomas statement on page twelve actually killed one luna because the cleric concluded the jury did not find this theory credible and that that is a credibility determination based on prior proceedings that can not be relied on at the second doesn't  from the jury verdict well it actually begs the question here because the standard for the actual innocence claim before you is a forward looking standard and it asks not what did the jury think earlier  this new evidence well the filmmakers were presented with a trial theory that was completely unsupported by any that big the opposite is true here where the theory of trial the truth is now subverted by accuracy required consideration of that your say either moreover exceptions to the hearsay rule apply here but in order to determine if they're buying the chamber's analysis profilers you do evaluate the reliability of the evidence time or name the victim of the shooting that she observed but she did say in her affidavit that the next day her boyfriend believed her ron luna had been shot the night before and she immediately obviously connected the dots and knew that of the crime and the details provided by other witnesses both at trial in new with the thing they found recent has clearly been way but to the extent it has been a hearing if the face result that not the second stage how do we reconcile that with the rather difficult standard that applied to actual us so that the evidence that has produced the n probability that this new evidence would change the minds of the jury if it hears that yes so promptly simply goes to the legal sufficiency of the claims and the evidence before him and in talking about about reliability of that and that cannot be determined until the third stage once we have gotten past the legal sufficiency of the claims threat and second stage under competent in that guilty verdict and some of the evidence some of the witnesses from that third stage hearing will then be presented at a new trial that is not required but all of that evidence could then be presented at the new trial i think that is the unreliable identification as laid out in the social science and grace by the supreme court and learn about she was a stranger not from the neighborhood who made it both racial identification during a stressful i'm involving a gun which has been shown today for extension from the perpetrators to the gun because this case comes down to a contest of the credibility of witnesses it was aired to dismiss that at the second stage and  a crime is a terrible thing but that was not his alibi if all of it was actually seven times farther away and nineteen and all quiet here for the people who testified at the evidence or hearing all say he was fundamental mistake of fats and it is driven by an investigation that was not reasonable and not adequate can never be a reasonable strategic decision on which trial counsel and relied to defend against the claim but we're just talking counsel interviewed only one to two witnesses of a group of alibi witnesses they could not then valuate the strength of the alibi against the weakness those are potential vulnerabilities as is the case here because if you only interview one or two of the witnesses weaknesses a credibility issues that those interviewed witnesses cannot be raised against the credibility strain on interview witnesses and against the strain of these four alibi witnesses w because he was protecting us any and martinez who was considered a good girl in the neighborhood and he didn't want her to get in trouble for hanging out with him and using drugs he use any of my team as and his use of salazar explained that they didn't come back to the police station for a polygraph because the ascending i was under the impression they were calling her to make an appointment and they never followed and his use our desire was afraid because he did have a pending charge at the time i was required to the prior criminal histories the record is clear is that these were juvenile offenses that would not have been admissible in the trial if they had taken the stand so that is not a valid strategic reason to choose not present the alibi and also in a case where there was a strong defense been a fair strategic to see the decision to say we don't need an alibi but here there's a fence case was incredibly thin they had one theory that they presented with no evidence and there are many witnesses felt that because of emotional problems lodge with the clerk at that time i also personally called the january of this year to make sure the record resin fact complete because there had been confusion swirling and we didn't understand why i was told at that time that the rest of us