yours without he's testimony there never would have been a conviction in this case there was no confession there was no physical evidence and in fact the only other eyewitness to testify in this case stated that it was certain that mr hill was not the shooter in this case so based on that when he's recant he actually brought himself in line with the rest of the evidence a trial now yours he's admitted he made a mistake as a teenager when he identified mr him boy as the shooter and he was under a lot of pressure of first of all for themself to identify them in the shot put his friend but more importantly was under pressure from the police in this case and effect mr keyes was in custody at the time he viewed the lineup in this case and the police indicated to him that mr campbell was the s say this is not the guy he just said i'm no longer as sure as i was you're looking at just impeachment well no you're actually in this case he was asked point blank your testimony that you gave the trial you stand by that he said no the fall question was but when you look at the testimony you look at this trial and he states again and again that he doesn't have the shooter that he never he has been then in cross examination they ask him you know what that your lifestyle and you're correct he says no i'm when he says that there are a couple three or four witnesses who identify the same defendant one of them recants there's a good reason for the court to be suspicious there's a good reason for the court to be reluctant to remind but that's not the case this case we have one person who identified and we have one person who said it's definitely not the one person that identified them is now recanted here and here's a very plausible story that you know this isn't somebody who was friends with the defendant just flip this isn't somebody where i mean there's no reason sixteen years later to come claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call defendant's prior attorney by the name of del value to testify as to the circumstances of the defendant leaving the state of illinois whether or not that attorney gave the defendant some advice you should get out of town because well isn't that what happened here did he give their advice you get it up that there is an affidavit in the record that says that he gave that advice  value apparently was there at trial and mr of a whole chose not to call and under strickland those choices about whether or not to call a particular witness are entitled to great deference and it's not a case where the attorney was unaware of some potential evidence or i didn't know if he made an affirmative choice after discussing it with or i'll divide not to call it so i believe that's actually well i did it i'm sorry to interrupt you if he had been brought strategic choice but i mean yes with a tough question why in the world would we should call well there was there was an intimation the record at one point that the defense might be relying on an onion ocean the defendant was actually leaving because there was pending drug cases against him as well that was a potential other avenue you know that the problem with calling a defense attorney is that you might have to look of course you would definitely have to waive attorney client privilege and we don't know but it's possible the defend said more than the police are looking for me there may have been some communications that they could have gotten into that would have been more damaging the defense case than just the i gave him some advice to leave town  this court has already decided in its initial in this was in a close the balance case the court just discussed one of the kalat one of the issues under rect appeal was whether or not some comments made about the whole felony the the other shooter fleeing whether those were material and the court found that they weren't this also would not have there was but no prejudice here even if you get past the first problem strickly there's certainly no prejudice in not calling mr defendant may have come up with is the why he had to get out of town and it's seems to me that there might be an interesting cross examination well that's what i've suggested you know for all we know the defendant said i did it i got to get out of town defeats both problems and i don't think they've done that on the third issue is a claim that the trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing to a stipulation that they now say it was factually false that the stipulation was that there's nothing in the detective's report saying that he talked to this stallworth witness and that the stallworth witness said the shooter wasn't there in terms of the lineup it's kind of a technical point and there may be some semantics and bob but if remember the stallworth first told the police although he denied if you first told the police that i didn't get a good luck i don't think i can identify anybody i'm not sure i can identify the body so that if he goes to the lineup and he says i can't identify anybody that would be consistent with that but what he's trying to claim a trial is all along did get a good luck and so that the statement the shooter isn't there is a it's a realization or a claim by him that he could identify the shooter had the shooter been there first as a blank statement of i don't identify anybody so it's much more positive statement on behalf of stallworth and therefore there is a difference so it's not a false statement that was introduced and so proud counsel can't be faulted for for the grievous or stipulating something that it is in fact in the in the police reports or  and gave his testimony at the evidence you're hearing was was kind of uncertain mush this remember again this court found evidence to be essentially not closely balanced found it to be credible when he testified in the first trial that stated he had a good look the street lights were on the corner men stopped seven feet from me looked him right in the face if i defendant is the man in the middle of the group i defended or dark pants a white shirt  described a haircut and then it's interesting because it trial the people put on detective mohammed who said that went to the scene of the murder and said the bright he's totally been making identification right he's when he gets on the stand at the evidence you're hearing make several claims that were out and out not true he basically would have would have had the court believe that he all along told the police and anybody else would listen that he was i'm sure he was specifically asked to tell that to the state's attorneys and it's unclear whether the question was relating to the state's attorneys at trial or the state's attorneys at the grand jury so in the evidence you're hearing we put both up with trial systems on it but the grand jury assessed nine and they said no he never said anything like that he never said he was unsure he never said the police told him who to pick out never said he was drunk detective mohanned testified at trial that he never said he was unsure so the notion that he was unimpeached is just flat out wrong he was certainly a drug  chance he wasn't one of the guys who still have come out and said this isn't the guy with the best that he comes out and says i'm not sure so they found a second affidavit and now the police are telling him who who did it and showing him photographs first when it gets to the eviden hearing it's more of like telepathy or gestures or something the police are somehow communicating that telling him to pick out of their gesturing in a certain fashion but who would pick up and the bottom line is this judge was fully aware that he was making credibility determination that's the whole point of having an evidentiary hearing is so the judge can make a privileged information he said several times before the hearing that he wanted to hear these witnesses because he needed to make credibility of humiliation when he's making his findings he starts out by saying i have to make credibility determinations and then when he rejects the petition is a wholly says this defendant's or this witnesses testimonies i'm sure as a whole and it can't be unsure it has to be convincing it has to these circumstances certainly but the judge did this was in line with what the record showed and was not manifestly erroneous and you know what would motivate somebody like this to come in and lie this point in time and possibly with the defendant's mother and there was some talk back and forth about winnie contect the pope and who we contacted i don't know he's made friends with this man over the the course of time or not i mean there's all sorts of reasons why someone's testimony might change  does seem to reject that out of hand once once he heard the evidence that collins and said that the whole thing was a lie i don't think that played anything in it to do with with with assessing the credibility of hannibal instruction up well that's true actually the appeal in this case took place in two thousand and one exact same year the gonzales came out so we know that it held attorneys were raising these issues at the time that really odd if you look at this comports decision look at the record in this case they discussed quite and they motion eliminated yet everyone agreed that fight was off the table or it was going to come in and then the city brings it in a trial the state at closing argument actually takes up about four page the transcript another attorney so this is somebody that services attorney previously and he was willing to bring this but in terms of trial strategy though this is not something that the courts who consider that second stage that's something that should wait until first stage you know that's professional determinations credibility determination decision that was made as opposed to me just a lazy failure it's a decision that was made those in the law say that we have to respect that decision whether the senator was a stupid decision that he made again that's going to something that the the court really has and we're not really in a position are we in this i think i believe that we should say that that was a bad decision are we supposed to respect drop counsel's strategic decisions as long as he's aware of that and has talked of the value i mean and then he makes a conscious decision not to call them are we supposed to respect that well your honor if it was a conscious decision and he definitely knew your crack and he knew about attorney