witnesses admit that this was december one thousand and ninety eight about six pm that was dark the lone witness that knew him in the case and this is really the pivotal witness here george kempson it that's his actual name i mean a lot of the litigation in this case is surrounded on george concern mr jenkins hasn't on cover based upon his own investigation and investigation of all the lawyers convictions that were turned over by the state of the fact that he lied about his name a trial there appears to be nothing about his testimony that is truthful and then i'll fall so soon no charge the jury could have chosen to reject this entire testimony and lower why would why would you not have been able to discover this issue at times well and that goes to the basis of the in effect the claim that mr jenkins has been claiming is this trial lawyers should have investigated that and this is a this is a base level failure from start to finish i mean and then tester that once you get into the post conviction hearings as opposed conviction lawyer it you know tuloy as two separate lawyers spoke to mr mr kempson and he admitted to them that he wasn't sure who shot them those are and in two thousand and three that's a statement against penal interest that he's admitting perjury ok i mean these are things that should have been presented in post d conviction motions this is the fundamental breakdown we're martinez the ryan actually i guess you could say closes the circle were more murky kerry talked about substantive due process violations with regard to why a procedural bar should be set aside for something like mr jenkins ok he's just i asked the court i plead with the court to hear that a reasonable jurist would debate whether there  extraordinary circumstances in this case as to why you know mr jenkins you know failed to adhere not of his own fault but failed to meet within that one year deadline that they a p a places on a defendant and i can tell you i have a little bit of an attorney that sounds like it sounds like he just said that the reason why he didn't discover it in a timely fashion was because but he should have and that the attorneys just failed to pursue it  that's part of the argument the other art the other argument is the fact that the state should disclose that anybody that's what every criminal trial a rap sheet should be turned over a criminal history of a defendant should be why is it that it but then that would have to go out there and discover that himself it's taken years to do that this should have been disclosed this is their witness it's under their can consume is under their control but you know again you're talking about an individual who doesn't have a lot of money who's litigat this case and i see this time and time again and that one year procedural bar that that time limit places in and absolutely difficult it's such a tremendous hurdle for a defendant when you're trying to get to the truth and you know this man has been sentenced to an extraordinary amount of time and we asked that he be heard we ask that the court hears quite that's all we're asking for thank that the identity his identity the fact that he identified the petitioner was what was critical not necessarily what his real name was or what you know where he was born that kind of thing but that much of that got in front of the jury anyway because it was one of your honors pointed out there was testimony that he did have d different kind of different identifying information and i think the judge thing i think that it was new in some point but i think that i think it was discoverable i think that it was known at least as of the date of the trial where that the morning when this testimony was that he n i think that correct your honor and i think that's probably an accurate depiction but whether or not it would have changed the outcome i think is the question and and i think that the critical inquiry as attorney coffin noted was the actual identification of the petitioner not so much that the witness had this other identifying information and also that some of it was really the absence of information because i think for example with respect to we are he was born and whether he was born in new haven and that kind of thing it was never so i don't believe it was ever shown that he was not i think it was just not shown to show a ball that he was so i think a lot of it was the absence of evidence rather than evidence of a i don't believe that you know our position is it would not it alter the outcome of the trial or even of any of the subsequent what is the is the question whether it could have been discovered the time and we're not deciding whether there was prejudice were decided whether he should be excused from the that that should might have changed the outcome under the grand excuse well i think i think that judge julie's sort of analysis on the timing and my understanding is he's not really challenging her analysis with respect to the timing i think that