it was the only evidence against  presumably got a pretty good look at the person doing the shooting he did not identify mr robinson in the white house and that was much closer to the event that was a total of ninety two the shooting happened in june of ninety two  be that he would have been defense counsel really have been able to do something with that information to raise the specter of reasonable doubt because it involved james fired because he couldn't he could ok so the attorney nicole's just with me having my all and not have any testimony from anyone saying that he never did see that that is correct but we also don't have anything in the record to suggest that he was tired of being asked about this was his explanation it was ted being questioned about this case and said he didn't know him and he wasn't and so when the robinson you know his position was the police said that they had information on this guy it was was inconsistent and it's it's a bit complicated about the details but he's been he's going through out the story of where people were standing in the end you know the circumstances of the shooting and he's kind of all over the place about who was on the watch who was on the sidewalk that was so you just say that he was inconsistent his his recantation was inconsistent with his trial testimony but his tribe as the morning was also internally inconsistent to that to a large degree  counsel before the hearing or at the hearing into the state before the hearing also he said unequivocal that he was present and he saw people shooting evidence as a where in light of the compas standard and properly determined whether the newly discovered evidence that was presented was a such a conclusive character that it would change the results on a retrial and the petitioners just like to point out focuses on me examination it was just a videotape in a transcript that was offered into evidence and it's as important to look at the details of that we can take action and most importantly he changed plans to change the location of where the victim's body was found following the shooting and tendering of it doesn't mean that there was a prior brady violation the petitioner's argument is i got the memo so late so there must have been a brady violation but it doesn't matter when p c has conviction counsel learned about the memo all that matters is whether that because that information had been disclosed by the state after the conversation engine fourteen it's reasonable to infer that the state had the conversation with her the public defender about in the public defender exclude those same topics  look at the chronology of events there is the inference a reasonable inference that can be drawn in a natural conclusion that can be drawn from what we have on the record is that the state had that conversation in june and let the public defender now and then it would be a next court date petitioner as the shooter is going to testify that would have come in a substantive evidence it's absolutely reasonable that the season trying to train would not call this person as a witness it could have done right harm than good in their case and it's a trial strategy decision not sure if there's any other questions with respect to the brady violation of the alleged the but they did violation with respect to the actual innocence claim if there's anything that you'd like me to touch i can certainly point out that the sta of the post conviction petition if you denied that relief does not appear to be it doesn't appear that he found mr burns to be not edible he based his his decision on with the fact that he couldn't tell it was us and you want to say that this trial court's decision was clearly erroneous i want to state that i will say that the conviction in this case was hinges on the testimony of one person