days before the murder where your client said to his daughter if you don't come back i will kill each and every one of them i will go to jail families go to jail once they will be and then on the night of the murder he  his job as a taxi cab driver early there's thirty nine dollars calls between the time he leaves his job and a few hours later when the murder happens with people in pakistan and then just immediately after the murders he talks to his daughter again and  recording says i will not leave a single member of their family alive what we she says what we do have another twenty four hours he says something else will have to go another person will be gone that was the heart of the government's case and i don't see how any of this additional evidence impacts any of that core evidence how a jury the standard this is a very high standard would probably result in an acquittal so even if all this other information was put before the jury what would be the explanation for those of threats that required action because the government is reporting them as they are so the government didn't go and tell the family we have to hide you somewhere it's of the authorities in pakistan we have to hide you because it is a legitimate threat against your life this was a father who was very upset because his daughter who ran away with someone and left a marriage that had been arranged and and he was at his wit's end in trying to get his daughter back and was making the argument was in making idle threats to be so made over a defendant's own warnings to his daughters several days before the murders that if you don't come back i will kill each and every one of them i will go to jail she did not come back and the evidence at trial proved that he did in fact participate by conspiracy with relatives in pakistan to execute the father and sister of the the man who helped his daughter escape pakistan this court affirmed that conviction finding no merit to the defendant's claims government's proof the trial is overwhelming to be sure it was circumstantial but that also involved as your honor pointed out earlier direct statements substantive statements from the defendant about his future intense as well  as his admission that he had issued threats and that his brother had been present at the scene of the murder may have been present at the scene of the murder given that backdrop the purported newly discovered evidence upon which the defendant's motion rely would have been extraordinary to convince a district court that are serious question really existed about whether an innocent person had been convicted the evidence proposed by counsel and upon which his motion relies is not of that quality now some of the evidence can be argued as not newly discovered and certainly we do so in our papers the evidence i'll focus on for purposes of my three minute argument is the pakistani court documents outside evidence provided by counsel has like to know st that with respect to the reports that many which is the pakistani document that summarizes statements by various witnesses i think there's there's a real question about whether it's newly discovered in the sense obviously the document itself did not exist at the time of trial but the testimony outlined in that document certainly was from witnesses who could arguably have been accessed by the defense and in certain instances in fact were accessed by the defense counsel concedes in his papers that three of the individuals had provided affidavits to the defense and were known to the defense as early as the time of the defendant's bail argument so well before trial and presumably could have been accessed again and in order to testify it's significant in this case despite the challenges of this having the murder itself happening in pakistan the government and defense counsel work together to make significant efforts to prevent these men to allow the defense to present the case that they wanted to present we worked with the state department to allow three witnesses to be brought to the united states on temporary visas and they were brought to the us two of whom the defense elected to have testify and addition we conducted a rule fifteen deposition with the th with them whose testimony was presented at trial so the idea that it was an insurmountable hurdle for the defense to present testimony from alibi witnesses that they knew existed at the time of trial but were in pakistan is not consistent with the facts before your your hon note that with respect to the witnesses cited in the report many of them provide little to no basis of knowledge for the conclusions they are being held out as of the defendants but interestingly he was in the united states at the time of the murder we alternately sought a material witness warrant for him and he was held on g p s tracking device here in the eastern district of new york through dependency and trial alibi witnesses purport to offer if they were called to trial with respect to the sell side evidence i think it's important to note that while it was presented to the government and to the court as an attachment to one of the of three pages did not consist of a cover page there's no subscriber information or anything of the conning to link the cell site evidence to that bar whose alibi it purports the phone is tied to bab are in any way other than that the report from the pakistani authorities state as much but the records themselves that were provided are completely inadequate in establishing the same because they don't bear subscriber name there's no narrative or the david identifying how that telephone number and those three pages of excerpted records are tied to bab are proof that he was in phone during the relevant time period interesting lee they also show they also stopped you know within an hour of the actual murder time but presumably they could the argument to afford the opportunity of these defense witnesses to testify as one of your honor's pointed out there was an effective defense case here it was it was a comprehensive defense case it was ultimately rejected by the jury but it  it contains testimony from three different witnesses one of whom was an eyewitness by her own account and it was her testimony in particular was directly contradictory of the government's two witnesses so the idea that i'll say before the court raises the issue that much of this would be cumulative at best and was already rejected by the trial jury the last point i'll just make is with respect to the mirror when we talk about whether or not these alibi witnesses could have turn the verdict i think it's significant to focus on the fact that trial counsel felt it necessary not to call as a witness the only other victim in this case t account it's clear from the record that he had originally reported while at the hospital the day of the incident and that had been involved in the shooting his proposed testimony at trial in defense of mr choudary was going to be one hundred and eighty dollars degrees in the other direction so all of this taken together i think it's fair to say that the did this report was not convinced that new evidence either individually or in the aggregate would have been likely to result in an acquittal given the strength of the evidence presented a would submit that you could he was effective because if there's not an absence of record here on the defense case he presented testimony that directly refuted it credited by the jury directly refuted the government's to present the defense case under very difficult circumstances and the fact that he didn't put on every one of these witnesses does not render him in effect that i think certainly there may be other reasons he