no conviction for a lie and the state's key witness lying about having that conviction for a lie when the court granted a certificate of appeal bill in the bill if it did so specifically to address the question of whether the completely evidence was material under brady versus maryland the short answer to that question is yes because of the combined nature of the evidence presented in this three readers trial and the critic unique nature of the conviction in question as we know materiality in a finding of it is dependent upon the specific circumstances in the case and a determination that there was a reasonable probability had the withheld evidence been presented it would have had a reasonable possibility of altering the outcome we know from kyle's versus whitley which it in other cases while being withheld evidence from by the orleans parish district attorney's office that that materiality standard does not require a defendant to prove beyond a preponderance that he would have been acquitted had the evidence been presented we also know from begley that it is his luck required push for all that there would have been a different for it all that is was very ordered and to show that the withheld evidence undermined confidence in the verdict of the jury st came the united states supreme court and if i would say elaborated on this instead where the evidence in the case is already thin any evidence that undermines the verdict is immaterial and greater why the case is based and dependent upon the testimony of one witness is curses came another case involving withheld evidence by the orleans parish district attorney's office the testimony against the defendant well rested entirely on one witness and when the evidence was withheld that serve to impeach that witness united states supreme court found that that was material one because what was the evidence presented in the case and two because of the unique nature of this case if i might i will move to addressing the evidence that was presented in the case and that was the state's entire case rested almost totally on the testimony of mr price if there was a jacket recovered but not that jacket was never leaked to the defended and there wasn't hearsay evidence but obviously we know case there was no firearms identification there was no other scientific evidence in the case such as bigger prints or d n a there was no motive ever introduced on behalf of mr reid or there was no evidence of prior blood bad blood between mr reader and the deceased there were no host crime inculpatory statements by mr reader at this isn't there were two other things that were really significant i believe and that is why there haven't been others us that suspect had a motive to lie and made a threat and shortly after the shooting we call to tell people about the shooting in addition mr reeder was in our eye and he was playing basketball with other gentlemen on the basketball court in the housing development that evidence just felt like and i think you can see the significance more and more of the evidence about the lie when you consider what state did with that alibi evidence in its closing argument it discredited that alibi evidence by saying one they were friends of mr reed or to the people had convictions for drug offenses and then they argue this is the quote you will find that earl price with everything you know about him was a credible witness when asked about his convictions he admitted the right was not hesitation now why he admitted the right away that wasn't completely false statement completely false because when asked to understand whether he had any other convictions never mind the convictions that the defense might have known about and didn't use he denied anything else he never admitted that he had a prior conviction for a lie so he lied about his conviction for a long time when you are asking the jurors to vic someone on his word and you highlight how truthful you believe he is and how you've shown by your questions his truthfulness the mere fact that you have withheld that conviction becomes very significant in addition there is something unique about this in that the conviction is a unique what we're not talking about a condition for an assault a battery a robbery we're talking about a conviction that falls into the classic cases known as criminal fal those are cases where because of dishonesty the crime has the ability to affect the administration of justice by the introduction of fraud or to see that's what this was and this court is state versus cathay said itself in talking about it that these are crimes involving his honesty and are often more probity of a witness his lack of credibility than even more serious crimes of violence that is why this evidence about mr price was so important in the context of what was the evidence in the entire case what was the argument made about his truthfulness by the state and the nature of this cl the documents you do on that he pled guilty ringback to that conviction and then was placed on probation and that four years into his five years probation he was revoked and sent to the federal penitentiary and obviously for purposes of six o nine issue which would be specifically relevant in louisiana law it would be in federal law a ten year period would start to run into he completed his sentence so this fly might actually fit we don't know for sure but depending how much time he spent in prison it might actually fit within the ten years otherwise the way they were dressed it would have been since in louisiana there is no time limit on convictions the proper way to address it would have been to reveal it to the defense and then file a motion in limine arguing it's remote you don't withhold it and then later say oh well it doesn't make any difference that that is not what really versus maryland intended this jury was asked to make a determination of guilt or innocence based on the testimony of mr price without knowing why he had that conviction and more significantly without knowing that after getting on the witness stand and raising his hand and swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the we don't know what the verdict was in the nd jury in one thousand nine hundred and five we do know that at that time a cure agreed to not have to be unanimous so we don't know whether it and people eleven people or twelve people found mr price to be credible and trial but those are significant facts to consider in light of an active nobody was advised that he had this conviction there are i guess this is an appeal of a state post conviction decision and the highest court that reached a decision was before circuit court of appeals the standard there would apply here specifically that prior to the st trial evidence of a federal conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm had been revealed and suggesting they don't maybe the other federal conviction wasn't revealed the defense knew about that conviction that is not correct that is not substantiated by the record in fact the record shows to the contrary that when the state file a hand written answer to the defendant's request for discovery of convictions after st they not entitle when it filed the answer it was handwritten and it listed on its release date convictions for mississippi and assault a burglary in an armed robbery and a state conviction from alabama a convicted felon in possession of a firearm no where on that document which is contained in the trial record and which was supplied by both the defense and the state to the th circuit in their respective clean east nowhere in there is there any evidence that the federal conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a fire are was ever produced that is in a wrong he has finding by the force or in addition we know that given the nature of the evidence in this case that what was presented at trial and given the unique nature of the conviction that we're talking about in a case that rested primarily on the testimony of mr price the th circuit erroneous fully applied clearly established jurisprudence as set forth in supreme court decisions on the issue without power to to reverse the state court's decision on that issue unless it fits into one of two very narrow exceptions and section two hundred and twenty five thousand and forty one says that the decision must be contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law and i think the st issue here and if i may clear up a little bit of confusion about what counts as clearly established federal law the supreme court has said that it is only it's the holdings of its own cases at the time that the state court rendered its decision on the merits and that would have been in may of two thousand and twelve i believe  reeder relies on quite heavily of course was decided after may of two thousand and twelve so the cane does not count as clearly established federal law for the purposes of this panel a sprinkler law was worth considering and if it's by this court it would be president binding for us is that a fair space no your honor respectfully i would disagree and i would say that the supreme court has held that only its holdings and not even its details to what have we today said what clearly established law was relevant to this from the supreme court next week another panel would have created nor that even though we just target with the law we don't need a philosophical discussion will have to do with this but i do think you're absolutely right if supreme court authority look at it but when we look we'll say what we see and then as a perfect yes your honor and that and i think i think what matters is up this this might actually be a philosophical conversation because the cases are going to be very different and the next step in determining what's clearly established law as this court explained and bonk in langley the prints just last year is you have to look at the correct level of generality at and and this court expressly cited the supreme court's qualified immunity jur now the count is clearly established federal law under qualified immunity of course the facts have to be almost identical not not quite identical but very similar and here it's not enough to simply  old conviction well it counts and puts that case in a whole new light but that is only character evidence and in my reading of the relevant supreme court decisions at the time that have been decided at the time i don't see a case where the court says that mere character evidence can put an entire case in a whole new light and and i think that that is dispositive so even even if this court had on director view somewhere else said we think that character evidence makes a big difference that wouldn't matter for the purposes of because only the supreme court's holdings count not this court's holdings and that's simply what i mean when i say that this court is jurisprudence sisters print this courts could be much more fully developed because this this court simply hears more cases but the state court is only obligated to know and understand the holdings of the supreme court and not this quarter or any other circuit at the time that it rendered its decision and so it really would be in my view your honor only only that the supreme court cases that would matter now in case there is some question i could imagine either opposing counsel of the court wondering whether or not  we have waived or forfeited the clearly established law standard because of course mr reeder supplemented the record below in the district court with the weary decision but once again relying on langley in a little bit deeper into the relevant cases now that we kind of have a good idea of what counts as clearly established federal law it's the question here is just whether it's material whether or not this undisclosed conviction is material and i'd like to start going back just a little bit federal rule of evidence six hundred and nine is also not clearly established federal law for the purposes of this court's review of the state court's decision and state the state court simply says student state law simply allows any prior conviction it doesn't have any sort of special exceptions for for character evidence of regarding dishonesty but looking looking at the relevant supreme court decisions have been decided at the time when the th circuit was looking at this seems like they're all very distinguishable to me you honors for example and sniffy kane the key witness said he couldn't identify anyone because he couldn't see faces and he wouldn't have known them if you if you'd seen them that is of course powerful evidence that goes to the question at issue in the case whether or not he was innocent whether or not he could have made a correct id that is dramatically different your honour's from the case here where the only thing that's at issue is whether or not he had  a conviction for lying seventeen that was seventeen years old and that was made in the past so i think that smithie cain is clearly distinguish bull kyles be willie i almost feel a little inadequate talking to the panel about that case because of course judge king was on the panel at that time and it was her powerful dissent that was quoted directly by the supreme court in that case in which she said for the st time in my fourteen years in this court i have serious reservations about whether the state has sentenced to death the right man and the supreme court of course the light on that and the evidence there was again of a powerful dramatic nature there were conflicts conflicting testimon between the between the eyewitnesses it was just a totally different case dramatically different case that really didn't at all put into question your kept character evidence ye same goes for bakley and augers and brady maryland and so your honour's i just don't see a case that's on point here and i believe that that becomes especially say salient and we actually consider what was known at the trial this isn't simply a case where where the state's case rested entirely on mr rader for example detective morris testified that norm had identified reader as the shooter and mary many ina had provided similar testimony and both testified that ms forrest was afraid to speak publicly on the issue now whether or not those issues the statements are hearsay i know the court has heard a lot of hearsay this morning but whether or not those statements are here say they were admitted into evidence and the jury did hear them and and so it wasn't simply just mr reader's account or excuse me mr price's account of august and so i think i think it matters also a great deal that here mr the basic facts of mr price's account of the shooting are pretty well corroborated by the evidence and he said that he saw mr ritter have an argument with mr brock's and the victim and he he said that he saw him shoot him twice and then mr broxton turned and started running to the store and mr rader shot mr broxton two more times and missed two times and his bullets hit the car nearby and before mr reader excuse me mr brock's and ran into the grocery store and that basic account of course and then later he said he that he saw mr ritter deposit his jacket  by the dumpster and he led the authorities to the to the jacket and that jacket was seen by other witnesses such as ella fletcher i believe and so it seems like the actual account here was pretty well corroborated by the evidence and that there was good reason to believe him mr price testified i never forget a face and i saw him and there's very good reason to think that he actually did see mr rader on that day and the jury believed him if that were not enough your honor sir the defense counsel had every opportunity to impeach mr price on his on his testimony defense counsel knew very well that mr price had more than just the one conviction for aggravated battery and  with intent to kill and he asked mr rader on day on the stand excuse me has mr price on the stand did do you do you have any other convictions and mr price lied on the stand and said no and defense counsel didn't correct him didn't try to impeach him said nothing and just let it go so i i'm actually not sure that even if he had known even if the defense had known about this extra conviction for lying that was seventeen years old at the time it's not clear that he would have have used it and and so that the state court the th circuit decision which is what this court is reviewing here they  said no it didn't that extra conviction would not have undermined the jury's verdict and of course that that decision is not on review here merely for incorrectness this panel perhaps and director of you might might have seen things differently and stead the court is reviewing for unreasonable in this beyond any fair minded debate in other words this court would have to say that every fair minded jurists who could have possibly who could read this for circuit opinion would come to the opposite conclusion there is no room even for reasonable debate but i want to add that every every judge who has considered this issue so far has found that this that the withholding of the information was not  material including the district court who i would say is most certainly a reasonable jurist and so in my view your honors it would appear that that the standard is clearly satisfied here and that mr reader cannot overcome at those very very demanding and difficult review and i think that that standard makes all the difference here legal conclusion in that opinion and we also should be looking at yes thank you your honor so this court has said that brady violations implicating mix questions of law and fa and it has also said that mix questions of law in fact must satisfy section two thousand two hundred and fifty four d one which is the contrary to an unreasonable application of withheld by the state and that my guess is that favor billet in materiality or questions of law but whether or not that information was withheld is of course a question of fact and the state conceits that that information was withheld and that the states can conceits that that information was favorable so rather this former convention if no in up i don't see any relevant supreme court case law that directly that directly addresses the issue of whether or not character evidence alone can put the case in a whole new light and  i also don't see any supreme court decision that directly addresses the issues here especially when there's so much other corroborating evidence and i agree with opposing counsel statement that that the back under the bagley standard if you have extra evidence then you know the whether or not one witness statement matters it begins to lessen and here there is other corroborating evidence so i don't see this is correct you know i did not participate in the writing of the brief your honor i sort of parachuted in about a month ago that the person who did write the brief i've been told has left the office but our office likes to get involved occasionally with complicated especially complicated at book cases and for example we did exactly that in langley prince which this court decided on b last year the state solicitor general's office likes to likes to help out in these sort of cases which i think there is some correlation in the federal system as well but if they're in a sort of question mr price had for truthfulness and not truthful has this is evidence that he was previously convicted of lying and he lied on the witness stand about that conviction for a lie so we're not talking about character evidence in addition your honor contrary to what house over the government has said here in williams versus taylor the united states supreme court said that the appellate court's reviewing this the federal district court on the appeals bench is reviewing these cases are certain court for another area coming up with another decision so it's just that you have to have a case that is exactly on point before a defendant can meet the materiality standard or show that there was a i'm reasonable prosecutor had complied was obligations produce a process it was important to consider whether or not a defended had a meaningful opportunity to he sent a complete defense mr ritter did not have a meaningful opportunity to present his defense that did mr price was a liar because of the withheld evidence this court has said that in floyd these verses were neuer another case involving withheld evidence by the district attorney's office in orleans that it was important to look at what the defense how it could have used the wind held the evidence and contrary to what counsel for the government has said the defense could have dramatically used the evidence in question after pointing out that number one there was an alibi after pointing out two there was a alternate suspect the defense could have then said to the jury it is usually to the inconsistency in this to readers testimony about how the perpetrator arrived in addition to being contradicted in the brewery and he gave a what happened after the shooting by the store clerk and the state's own pathologist who said it would be practically medically impossible for what he said to have occurred the defense could have then focused on and what do you know about this man ladies and gentlemen this man is a liar he's been convicted of lying when it search his purpose and he lied on the witness stand about that prior conviction that is a drug addict use that any defense counsel would certainly have made in the united states versus others this poor case it may be forward in some cases but in this case there clearly wasn't enough evidence given the lie that was told in looking at the whole case accordingly we believe that it is appropriate for mr readers could application proposed indiction to be granted and his conviction reversed thank you all right thank you ms miers thank you miss make fee for your briefing an argument on the case that concludes the argument in this one the case will be submitted and we will get it decided as soon as we