the phrase wrongful conviction we think we got the wrong guy it's not that sort of iran for conviction there's been no question all along in this case that terrence higgins is the individual who shot season morale on the deed in question resulting in  the question has banned whether or not that was justified shooting the state prosecuted this case under the theory that hearing shot an unarmed man mar at trial and marcus and it has now come forward and said that that's not what happened that he gave false testimony at trial that that false testimony was induced by the prosecutor who was his cousin who persuaded him to give williams who lived around the corner seems nobody knew about her at the time she definitely wasn't talked to by the police and has nearly come forward and said mirelle is at her house with her husband prior to the incident so i'm going around the corner to get my money and show that he had a would be highly relevant and again we have from multiple sources now highly relevant to claim of self defense regardless of whether the gun was in season miles hand or on its person that that particular distinction would be a matter for a new trial seeking a new trial of course third stage evidentiary hearing it's his burden to show by preponderance of the evidence a substantial violation of constitutional right matt burden here at the trial court denied the petition and so doesn't mean this court simply put that stamp of authority on what the trial court did we have to look at the basis for the decision and was it rock or was it not i talked about both of the claims in the briefing and let's talk about both of them here today but i here the basis for that is so he testified one way trial is testifying to the opposite now and he has explained the reason for the switch so it's terence he could not have produced his testimony in support of the conclusion that caesar all had a gun at trial because he was being influenced by the prosecution that's just fine manner that he did marcus hammond is a credible witness obviously is with some skepticism but here everything corroborate his testimony every other eyewitness who has been talked to has been presented as he had it at as also that season morale had a gun that's consistent across the we have shift here from what the trial theory was now even the trial prosecutor saying he doesn't think he thinks there was a gun he just thinks there's a distinction between whether the gun was out or whether the gun was still in the waistband claim so even if this court isn't willing to view them as newly discovered they corroborate marcus you know they're not irrelevant they're witnesses who are available and they corroborate what marcus hammond is saying jackie speed and deborah williams it probably change the result on a retrial so we don't need to close if proof were not before this court asking for an outright reversal we can't we're before this court asking for a new trial and the question is whether the the new evidence should be considered assessed in context of the trial of and and whether or not he doesn't have to be more likely than not that and result with just enough that it should be considered that there's no statement from him in the record in this case no affidavit no testimony now in this court the state has said well it wasn't because of the scheduling conflict it's not borne out by the record the one who decided not to disclose the familiar for meal the old relationship between scenary and marcus hammond to the defense at the time of trial which again this court found would have been favorable evidence in a witnesses in this case about him are all having fun there is a relationship to the prosecutor that was purposefully concealed it wasn't just a mistake that they didn't tell the defense that the prosecutor was related to this witness all sorts of things that undermine the state's witness credibility and support mark as he and radical in this case misquotes two thousand and fifteen opinion which i mentioned a couple times there's been no allegation that frank us stronger was ever alone with marcus him and marcus admits that michael chattery was there every single time he was with frank astroland so on the one hand we have nonetheless we have testimony that from someone else who was in the room that what marcus says happened never happened if we look at max's testimony it is not a credible pull the slide on the top of the gun back until marcus heard it click aim the gun at me or i'll start firing then marcus runs to the corner when he reaches the corner he stops he looks back he sees and by the testimony of the officer on flash forward to twenty sixteen marcus's new story at the evidence share here and was not only that nero had it gone on his person but th told him to lock that it was his illiterate father who was with him when he gave his statement rather than his mother whose signature is on what does marcus not say marcus doesn't claim that someone fed him the what michael kennedy said that marcus's mother was with him when the prosecutors told him to lie that is mother was sitting right next to him when prosecutors told him to lie on the stand that's a serious allegation and one would think that his mother could corroborate that today if it were true but has not called her and instead we have markets with significant inconsistency significant things that don't make yes my mother was with me the whole time michael tanner he says no no parent was with him we generally separate children from their parents when we're preparing to testify and and so if marcus says his mother was there when prosecutors told him lie on the witness stand then let's bring in his mother but that titian referred her to do so and we didn't hear from her we have car in junior who is not new for purposes of actual innocence and this court has already helped the defense counsel's not ineffective for failing to call and very junior is always said that from his vantage point a couple months after the murder was in the fourth county jail and he he summoned police officers to the jail say he wanted to give additional information that additional information is in his second police statement o prior to being shot by to sure that it was in his waistband under a jersey yes he didn't see it he didn't think it was visible and that after petitioner shot near all and we're all fell down the stairs then we're all live to destroy her and was going for the gun at which point they're all means started shouting he's got a gun he's got a gun that testimony strongly suggests that if you're all had a gun nobody knew about it him pointing the gun at me or else that we also have dealt hanes petitioner's cousin who's not new evidence for actual innocence and is also a convicted murderer at this time similar to marcus hammond that you're all had to go on but put it on petitioner before petitioner shot him so again we have a witness who's actually contradicting petitioner's account of the events which tends to discredit that witness's testimony i'd have to disagree with my opinion about whether jesse speed is new evidence yet the speed was known to defend it at the time of the trial he actually alleged immediately after trial that counsel was ineffective for calling the speed in addition to the area daryl and other witnesses and she was part of the crank will proceedings so she is absolutely not me you have a dance for purposes of actual innocence  witness that could be considered meaning for purposes of actual innocence is deborah williams the neighbor who says that you're always at her house shortly before the shooting and she showed he showed her that he had a gun but if anything again her testimony corroborates the state's version of events that if murell had a gun it was not visible because deborah williams said that we're all had to show lift up his shirt and show her  gun before he went over to the house so given all the but i asked and the in consistencies over the years with these statements it cannot be said that the circuit judge who had the opportunity to observe all of these witnesses committed manifest there but i'd like to focus as well i'm you know perhaps most importantly petitioner's own testimony because petitioner has repeatedly undercut his own self defense he feared for his life at the time he shot me around which severely harmed kitchener's credibility when he's telling the jury sometimes he said i was in fear sometimes he said i wasn't petitioner version of the events leading up to the shooting were nonsensical he claims that nero head beat him up in a foot locker you know a week or so before the shooting but that he had no idea what this feud with near all was about and that it didn't bother him at all that you're all had beat him up in this foot locker which doesn't make any sense and also petitioner knows what the feud was about because he told sergeant pass water all about upon his arrest so again he's not behaving credibility in front of the jury petitioner had the ability to preserve murals gone he didn't do that he fled the state shortly after the shooting the circuit judge here again contrary to petitioners assertions did a very thorough job evan and personally questioned petitioner on the stand at the post conviction evidentiary hearing and she went through the seconds prior to the shooting and hit edition and testified she was at that moment he pulled the trigger that mirabel was just starting to pull his gun from his waist there but that it admits that he could have avoided shooting that he had options to remove himself from the situation without shooting your own that he didn't take that simply doesn't meet the definition of self proposition that self defense requires the defendant believe that the deadly force is necessary to avert a threat and we have petitioners sitting on the stand under oath saying it wasn't necessary he had other option we don't even know if marcus his mother still alive there's nothing in the record that suggest she was even an available witness seats going off the record here when they suggest she should have been called we don't even know on this record that she that she could have been caught and i would suggest it's a collateral point and what this case is really about is the state prosecuted terence he means under the theory that he shot an unarmed man everything we're talking about here that all of what we're talking about here today and that is none of what was what was put before the prior fact in this case this theory that was repeated at least a dozen times by the prosecutors in this case was th reason that the trial judge pointed to in her order denying the post conviction petition is one little segment of a whole bunch of testimony about when exactly did he fear for his life the fact of the matter is he doesn't even have to fear for his life it's enough that he feared that imminent death or great bodily harm i've come point before he acted he doesn't have to wait till the last possible second a gun doesn't have to be out and pointing in its face before he can act with deadly force but again these are questions for the trier of fact and the trier of fact was deprived of a significant amount of evidence that caesar morrow was in fact armed that would have directly supported the claim of self defense and for that reason i'm asking this court to reverse the nile the petition room first the conviction and send this back for a new trial where that ends can be presented thank you if you