washington given the record that existed at the time and the absence of again their hearing which is an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel in michigan trial the chalkboard had two opportunities to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion for new trial and then again on a post conviction motion in the state court the state courts conclusions were not reasonable where there was no evidence that the honor they sensually go to the same issue which is the absence of those five witnesses ice five witnesses that swore that be complaining had recanted her allegations and her sister and then no other witnesses that we're aware of because the record doesn't show that and then appellate counsel also raised brought in two of those affidavits the witnesses on a was because it was the trial court said that these were not signed affidavits and for that reason will deny it i'm always concerned when you see a person get convicted and then there's recantation but i'm having trouble seeing how it fits in with the legal theory for relief at our level those recantations according to the affidavit so occurred after the trial so so i have a having a hard time seeing how that supports trial counsel eight i'm sorry two thousand and eight can you show it show me where it says two thousand page idea thirteen thirty two it appears sure correct and then also lindsey satterfield which i think of all as well it was it was supplemented for two thousand and seven as well which would be thirteen thirty  and then also these were supplement these were submitted him into the state court i think it was supplemental pleading to the motion for relief from judgment of trial counsel is what i mean it was that there were no patients could have been discovered prior struggle and trial counsel didn't investigate or interview most of these witnesses i mean even some of the autumn rosa page eighty thirteen zero five she says there was a recantation as well she doesn't remember exactly when it was sad but if we have trial counsel you know if we w evidence or hearing in this case which is the night at every level even the district court we would be able to clear up exactly what defense counsel could have done should have done and whether the statements and the recantations were available prior to trial but unfortunately we're left with a record that is incomplete and it seems that that is the reason why the district court denied the  these people if they really had heard of a recantation would have would have mentioned it as it least with respect to the one who who testified correct that is why the district i'm sorry the trial court denied really and also because the chalk or stated that the trial counsel effectively impeached the complainants credibility at trial so that was enough apparently and that also because case has the issue which on its face seems strong presented and then it's rejected for a reason and that reason has to be on reasonable for us to provide relief on the very claim you're talking about here is that correct correct and it would be in reason over that hurdle up how do we get over that hurdle it would be a reasonable because the the the record is incomplete without an evidentiary hearing we have a lot of speculation about what coun correct and he says there's not enough there here i don't know the trial court collateral attack state judge wright and says there's not enough there for that without even or you seem to be making an argument initially but that the argument was made and rejected then the question is whether that was a reasonable rejection or i'm i'm feeling the legal consequence well what our position is that it was not a reasonable projection witnesses and so how can the trial court say well you know we're just going to deny this without even talking to those witnesses this is just one witness that recanted it's own his own or her own testimony at trial there are five witnesses that would seriously undermine the credibility of the complainant in a case where it's just a he said she said there was no physical evidence she was highly extremely inconsistent during her own testimony and and it appears that maybe defense counsel is overly confident because she was so inconsistent didn't really do any investigation in fact didn't even serve one discovery demand on the government in that case and if we had an adventure hearing i think could be it would help clear up the record whether the defense counsel properly investigated the case as he has a duty to do who are the person i believe but in her slater statement stated that she did meet with trial counsel before corner and would have been willing to share this information with him and maybe we can get information from the  that the complainant wanted to drop the charges and the police didn't allow her to do that so that and then also in the district court district trial state trial were relied on the fact that if the petition but even even if they were these affidavits were very unreliable very suspicious first of all as as judge roger said at the end of the apple and argument this is alice one is what i called her in my brief because i think she was a minor at the time she testified at trial and she was asked at trial whether the victim ever told her that  petitioner assaulted her and she said she flat out said no she didn't she never told told her that i had the victim actually recanted prior to trial and you would expect recanting to this witness you would expect her to say yes she did tell me about it but then she later said it was a lie so for that reason the affidavit is very suspicious and again we're looking at this under the second affidavit as suspicious  that this is indeed the wind of the corrected ones get into the record your honor i'm actually not sure on that based on what i heard it was in the motion for leave from judgment i don't see that that wasn't in the state court's testimony at trial she actually testified for the defense at trial and was asked had did the victim ever tell you about these charges and she said no i never you know i never heard of them and she she just said no  she been told by the witness at before trial that she recanted that this is a huge lie you would have expected her to say yes i did hear what she told this again is the rationale of the state call at oral attack tr that that very reliance refers to two affidavits write the two sisters i guess they were satterfield at the rock center field but only one of those actually testified so the rationale doesn't even apply to them on that didn't testify is that correct or not i guess that would be correct however the two sisters said the exact same same thing in their affidavits and i don't know why there was a ban a reason to also call them the sister when they said the exact same  thing and again i don't know how why it would be it would be unreasonable for trial counsel to not further investigate this claim when there is nothing there is nothing there that these the sister said to indicate that there was  was significant evidence that there were is false allegations by the victim in that case including two police reports pretty much saying that the victim made from false allegations here we have nothing other than the suspect in that prior case explaining that he did wasn't the one that are hit in the south as this victim but you would expect them every case where there is an allegation of sexual assault that they would deny there simply it doesn't rise to missions and concrete evidence standard to show that this concrete evidence of false allegation so again that evidence were not of a missile admissible at trial and trial counsel wasn't explanation as to why appellate counsel should have independently gone out investigated these witnesses whom she had no knowledge of but again even even if there was a duty by a pal accounts of these affidavit were highly suspicious they weren't made intel for years after trial while they're supposed to from was sitting in prison even though they supposedly knew that this was a huge lie had but again there's no indication of why appellate counsel on direct review should have also done that that most of these witnesses were not do not testify at trial and were not sisters those were part of the record whether they were attached to our full writ the petition for writ of habeas corpus i cannot say for sure but i know they were part of the record and i did state the page eighty earlier  sure i know that as opposing counsel stated that the the there was an investigator that did go out and interview some of these witnesses and i think that's actually how all of them were  were discovered but and i'm not entirely sure because we're lacking record and evidence you're hearing on those types of issues and how they were discovered if they could have been discovered prior to trial and whether defense counsel should have done that  consul goes i believe since she was able to find at least two witnesses and present them to the to the trial court i don't know how she wouldn't have found the other ones given the fact that the that to answer i guess the question of opposing counsel why she wasn't active to answer that she was ineffective because she only raised two of the witness to witness affidavits in the trial trial court on the motion for a new trial and then didn't appeal the decision of the denial on that and then also failed to raise the other witness after david's in the in the trial court or the appellate court so that was where she was ineffective and obviously those witness statements would have made a huge difference in the case  and i think that had that been presented to the jury the jury would have been able to see through you know the allegations that the complaint was making and would have acquitted the defendant