the rule of the it cannot be something that's really the same principle piece of evidence dressed up in another way is that really what this is here i disagree with that this is fundamentally confession those are fundamentally different and i do think it's different about the statements while the actual substance of the statements are extraordinary more details than they were there's never been a hearing at all to determine any of them we have a statement to the internal affairs division hill for example that identifies the victim's jacket that he was wearing a hard rock cafe jacket something that is not mentioned anywhere at all in any police unfortunately a speculative chance to think which may be maybe covering for his cousin clifton english may have other motivations that was the whole basis because there was no here there was no one who looked to me at her his words to witnesses that were considered in that case so the question of why my client didn't bring this forward earlier well again it's not in his control it's in the control of the man who committed th the argument it's a very common claim that's common it happens routinely when you have for example the after the f b i affidavit from people in the penitentiary i would just rule in a case very similar that the person  confession with that maybe lead the defendant to believe it would have been useless to reach that those pretrial confessions issues in a post conviction titian i think that's absolutely true of course i mean when you have something like that you didn't have counsel to but i do want it and i don't want to avoid the question because i do think there is a law that supports it i think williams i think ortiz i think all these other cases i've cited in reprieve support my position that these are fundamentally a different claim that they w reluctantly i mean that the sentence only happens if not for the constitutional conviction so i want i want it to be clear but there are a lot of the following so much in this area that of course it's important for you to know what's going on and really i think we can start when he was seventeen years old fine when he is charged with murder and those factors all specters that we talked about with we is that those other sort of criminal acts if you want to talk about are telling me for exactly what miller and of factors and terms of use and then and montgomery case it says after they did they only determine that it has retroactive effect that particular case and that is again a case where it there was no d look to that and say that that shows where the court may be going but this is of course the case with three justices dissenting also the court may never go there but certainly at this point we don't have anything to say that it applies to discretion cases and i think that it should limited to the facts that were in front of the supreme court and what was decided moreover if you say it doesn't apply in some way or that we can look to the data and say well you know we have to look at that and really something should have been considered in terms of thi that this person who's who before you now at the age of i think twenty is nothing you know at the age of seventeen when he did these acts he's not going to be the same person at twenty seven he's not to be the same person at thirty seven so therefore you have to look at what's happened in that we have to look at did the youth play a factor a factor such that this is not going to be descent person and i think that that was before the trial court the trial court said it considered you know the arguments and the pre sentence reports and all every all the evidence in front of the i believe what i would say there is that even in terms of what we have on the record we don't know you know in terms of showing cause and prejudice we don't know anything about that nothing so you know to say that well  shown we can't look past the fact that you know in this particular case it's subject but that's ok or in this particular case it's you know we can look past the prejudice requirement well what subject will both his inability to find this which is tied to the crime and also that he admitted his guilt but he has to those two things we also have these davis who said that she also said that he she saw him with the gun  saying that he had heard a defendant make this particular question we asked him to the status things that she also had heard it but on the face or you know on her affidavit she says something to the fact that well you know  records well i do believe that that that there is that sufficient or statement of the attorney's statement in there to show that in fact that those were in his record at that time i do believe that they have cause i don't say that but then we get much harder to discern and every time it goes back and i mean i pointed out that he had here you know with the best of intentions i'm sure another tale was told to the defendant when they came when the latest came to talk with them which is you know was there anything said to you about the tills to yes you know to get the money on the pills or was it another suggestion and these type of thing happens over the earth and that's exactly why there has to be something l a there has to be some requirements that in fact factors and i know there were a few statements there that were certainly ambiguous and may have even suggested initially did not say that once there was to turn it in if you did this was out he said i'll wait for that that he got it and then he asked for argument about the factors and i think is a very initial statement maybe early on before he even waited to see if in fact the fit was going to be taken he actually said something to the effect of you know one of the cases that had talked about just using one factor and or that have i said that you have to have all the factors or it's out and so he brought that up the court  course with this case for a lot of reasons and one of those reasons is that it correlates they said well it was made to somebody close in time it was a close friend of his so you know that could be considered against but it was made to police officers so there this month after just doesn't work in this case and i believe it actually doesn't go to reliability and then has to be looked at just like you know in terms of if it's not a close acquaintance then and you know that it's not reliable that's not the case if you're getting into a police office not asked to identify the defendant no car i do not know why that was not done and you know i only can say that you know i mean the defense obviously had the right to interview him and talk to him and what it turns counsel didn't interview match he didn't interview any o piece of evidence to this offer propose to show that robert english is confession is worthy of belief or statements are worthy of belief because he's the type of individual who commits these offenses i would suggest that propensity and noticed the terms it certainly doesn't mean anything to the reliability and he happens to be from him then we certainly have it from this defendant who says by you know that he well and also english is compassion whether he could have done it in terms of the chambers types of factors you don't really look to determine whether or not you know there would be more of an evidentiary determination made at a later point is my point it's not  the court said it had prejudged it i have seen another case like that i think that you know as i said in my brief is generally considered that there are you know that she would get the same judge who is from the you with the facts and the fact that a judge errors and makes a decision which turns out to be reversed on appeal does not necessarily mean the judge cannot be fair so unless they can there's something in this case which the defense can point to and say that's where the judge is impartial has  seventeen year old girl i mean the teenager appear to not conform to the police we're no idea what's going on and it's almost meaningless and we're talking about your honor jorgensen when you ask isn't it unusual in the fact that  bat it was dark skinned older body type stack here i mean look at t v eighteen are very i mean look at those pictures look at that is i mean you tell me based on all of the evidence all of the content whether it's good whether they want to focus entirely on the in english we're talking about thinking here the pretrial confessions we're talking about if he didn't hear about the modus operandi or the fact that he did better another suspect who was in prison now was convicted of each still very similar the prosecutor must undertake further reasonable investigation or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit it is so important in this state we care so much about