the court i plan to argue both today there's a claim of a brady violation for the state failing to disclose that the witness expected certain immigration as help with securing citizenship during it before and during his testimony a trial is also not a claim of actual innocence based on the affidavit of a new discovered witness of victor reading your honor i'd like to briefly know that these two claims interact under illinois supreme court case if this were to terms that either of these can claim claims is frivolous almost immediately after this trial was complete just about a month this leads to a tree on the case senate and a letter to immigration officials detailing the star witness garcia's cooperation in the case it's utterly impossible that this letter would we don't need to prove that there wasn't what we do need to show show that it was a great violation was that the witness had some expectation of a benefit and the state you know about that now it's not plausible that this letter gets sent out of nowhere it's such just a month after trial not very long after my client's notice he was filed there had to be an ask made at some point that asked was do this was due to be disclosed to the to mr morales and it never claim i will concede that what we need is the opportunity to develop these facts my guy you're looking for an opportunity to determine when if ever that's correct was some agreement explicit or  sometimes you would have know pretty quickly right well this is an area where the law is conceded lee unsettles there's an open question on the law right now as to whether what happens when the state gets information sometime after a trial and even though this is a different question there's remarkably little out there our opening three cites a couple of federal circuit court appeals cases that have stated that there still would be a duty to disclose in that circumstance we really don't know exactly what the law is on at what point a break disclosure comes off this court you know what when that duty would have this court may not decide that question given the state of the proceedings in this  is that sufficient to board a new trial where you never contested really the credibility or the sufficiency of the evidence in the first trial because both fear in his wife it known the defendant for three or four five years knew him from the neighborhood was it to be identified in the night of the word disability assistance of some variation so don't you have to establish that if there was this quote has it brady agreement that should have been disclosed that it would have affected there is this agreement so what basically because everybody knew each other for three or four years and that it was never questioning your direct appeal that the credibility of these  which is exactly the opposite usually the witness says if you know how me hi hi you know i'm i'm going to do something else but what he's saying is i've been telling the truth and you haven't oh you or other people be no your honor and in response your honour's questions about the fact that he was familiar to these eyewitnesses i submit that the fact that they knew they recognized him for the neighborhood and direct appeal that's i think when you know your honor says asking that you're now saying these this eyewitness testimony was so we when you never took their position  as the you know i would not take the failure to show that failure to argue that the evidence failed the jackson standard that you know no reasonable juror could have bought these witnesses at trial to be permanent bar on the fact materiality i would actually submit that every defendant ever that has gotten a new trial based on a brady violation is a case where the evidence was sufficient to convict otherwise revile it in double jeopardy in these cases that's why we have and he wasn't one of those individuals his affidavit does not negate ortiz and garcia and so it's a sufficiency of the evidence claim it's like i maybe i would have another witness was the defendant wasn't there you still have all the witnesses who say he was bursitis and the affidavit that says the defendant wasn't there and i did it and we don't have any not believe that i saw the person there which is a lot different than the actual innocence claim of either he didn't do it i did it or he and i were in who i am and we couldn't take is true it is so if we look this is where al is helpful that was one u i witness i think twenty five years after the fact in allen he says he did it but that was forced contradicted by the many witnesses who testified at trial it's the fact a contradiction is it's what we say well there's enough here let's go ahead give him an attorney and see if we can develop this claim and see if there's anything actually if it's to see if there's something actually there and even the of the ultimate remedy here is after after an eviden hearing is just a new trial that's why this total vindication standard is incorrect a defendant petition you not ship to an indication to back that's an actual innocence he needs to show that all the facts and surrounding circumstances should be scrutinized this information that person who was seeking the immigration benefits and it would be counterbalanced until he would buy victor reading's affidavit in this kind of case where it's i would use only case of a confusing shifting scene invents on multiple days there's no physical evidence  yes your honor that question dead but the white witnesses were not impeached with the his you know what happened the closing argument first trial is the state's a pair of lionizing got garcia as coming forward out of civic minded this and using much before i did my trial whether they hear this from the surface for the first time in this written letter to i you know and i agree with you that everybody agrees that we don't know exactly after the fan it's trial here the voicemail comes in months months later he needed me transcribes it in ten years that counts it seems odd that he's going through all of these motions to further his discovery obligations but yet in this to indicate that there was brady material with the prosecutor who but he never told don't you think he's entitled to sort of wash it out to see if it's true the prosecutor would come back and say not true or yeah would you agree that if the prosecutor before sentencing agreed with mr rose that he would try to help you with this ability of immigration issues that there would be something that should be disclose even if let's say there was some sort of you know tat we not just tacit understanding whatever it might have been and we don't see that there was in this defense case we're still saying that this isn't a brady violation because you talk about this court is well aware of how well this witness knows the defendant and so well that the defendants even saying hey at some point he came to me and asked me about immigration disability they know each other it's ever been a stranger i do sort of issue and look at what exactly you i mean look at the one piece that we have that's concrete this but i mean what does it really say it just says to whom it may concern but i know listen i mean what it does been in the context of judging this witness is credibility i mean this isn't an essay that's bending over backwards to make sure that this citizenship is rammed through this is just so be a witness testifying i asked the state's attorney can you write to whom it may concern letter on my behalf coupled against all of them or make a judgment call fair enough i'm just pointing out that the materiality in the context of the entire record even if it's just this small letter that it's not going to undermine the tire credibility verdict and you have i see a testifying probably he knows and it's  when we just dial it back to what we really have before us is a better that came later after the french trial was over that's it to suggest that there's any sort of impropriety i'm behalf of this prose affidavit what it says is that i was driving along it was dark the area was illuminated by my headlights and within those headlights i saw about six people doesn't say specifically sex it doesn't say there's people that's the car side who are behind the car he happened to get a look at all six of those faces and recognize that none of those exit in that cone of a headlight is to and then years later he and it's kind of unclear delusional it appears that an ass was made for citizenship help at some point and account to bend it some point in a very brief the state wanted to be in this very brief period between the sentencing on notice basis this is not those kind of claims you know the sort of things that fill that standard like i can't be prosecuted because my grandfather was once a citizen to show these sort of things that this court sees go away all the time i'd also point out that in alan the court comic again on the first state standards and warned that circuit court should not be speculating reasons for dismissal here to dismiss on the parade it would be completely speculative we need a hearing to be able to