counsel claim based on tonsils failure to present lynch evidence to support his claim of self defense it is undisputed that during the early morning hours of november twenty fourth two thousand and seven shots were fired between the no i've been suggesting that he was shot by a handgun which was why his had been fired hayes has always maintained that he acted in self defense after a jury trial his liquid of all charges against wilson floor and what he has always maintained as he did this only in a soft defensive measure he was just trying to get himself out of that by safely because he didn't anticipate that he would be shot at with a shotgun and so if we actually look at what the state's evidence is we have three occurrence witnesses that simply cannot be believe they all have motivation and admittedly right to protect marsat who it is much much more sense is the initial shooter he pulls out the gun he's the bouncer he's not supposed to have a gun he's a convicted felon and he fires first and then this is corroborated by the office evidence because wilson is shot at first he's shot at by the shotgun he gets hit in the front and then he ducks under the pool table and row under the pool table then he hears a succession of shots and this lines up with what hayes has always said he says that he was shot at and that he pulled out his child into the floor and then he said he fired a few more times into the floor to get out of the club this is all right with what hayes has always said was his self defense of actions that simply does not line up with the state claims or with the state's witnesses and they were all inconsistent to begin with but they claim but that says that you know his comes in and just comes out straight shooting morissette says he comes in and comes in and he's got the gun out and then you biggest issue and wilson says that he's comes and walks up to the front of the bike and then he takes a gun out and begins to shoot all inconsistent but either way the evidence just shows that wilson was shot at first so i can't possibly be that hayes came in and started firing and then after a succession of shots then more set fires and then wilson is hit by in the foot by the shotgun pellets and then he goes under the the pool table and be an unbelievable witness i would say this three hundred level witnesses here john morse that certainly had a lot to lose he could have faced charges he was a convicted felon he wasn't supposed to have a gun but that was clearly wants to protect her own son and she says as much i know he wasn't supposed to have a gun i didn't say anything because at that wilson is in the exact same position he was living with both of the at the time john morris that considers him his quote unquote stepfather he's protecting john morris says falling to the point where they leads to the police of the state's attorney they must of hid the gun or something to that effect because the police searched the body and they don't find a weapon and it's not until you know it becomes very clear that john wilson was hit by a sho that morris had finally admits that yes i played a role in this shooting i had a shotgun i fired and that doesn't come out until way after they've been spoken to by multiple police officers by detectives by the state's attorney there's just nothing believable  about their testimony and then their testimony doesn't even add up with the physical evidence whereas hay is has always been consistent has always maintained that he fired in self defense fired into the floor he wasn't trying to hurt anybody that's the the conflicting testimony and how it's the issue is whether who was mishal aggressor became imperative for the trial counsel to get before the cherry the fact that morris sat had this violent nature and so what he had before him well the first crying and that doesn't apply here is that the the defendant has to have personal knowledge about the victim's violent tendencies so that that informed his state of mind in the moment the second one is that when there is you know conflicting testimonies about who was the initial aggressor the defendant is allowed to bring in evidence of the victim's violent tendencies still you know prior acts or convictions or arrests and that's where this falls into this evidence that you know in more sets capacity as the bouncer at this club he's out with an altercation at this club through physical violence wilson leaves the club and goes to his car to get money and he turns around and more  believing or seeing more fully what the situation rights were trying to figure out who the initial aggressor is that's what counts as entire argument was and we have the song called victim  has this temperament in this capacity as a sponsor who's willing to react with physical violence and gun violence while he's working as a bouncer at this club that's that's how he reacts to articulations in the club that's what the jury needs and that's the whole purpose of lynch and what they contemplate is that the cherry needs a full picture of what's happening and have a better idea of the violent tendencies of the victim in order to better contemplate who was the initial aggressor without putting this evidence before the jury the jury can really assess you know was john morse at the initial aggressor is this the way he would have acted may have sounded and these are votes about that someone would react by pulling out a shotgun in this kind of situation but if you put that in the context of this is someone who reacts like this normally even against someone who he considers a friend or stuff step by their faith their jury very well could have come back with a not guilty verdict on this on this charge so yes it is unreasonable for consul do that that wilson has the same consistency is what i would also argue that you know it's one more thing for the jury to consider there's all these all these conflicting stories and i would also argue that you know of the three witnesses were and has the least motivation happen that yes he said he admits that he lied initially because he was living with forth with them i said at the time by the time travels around that's no longer the case he has no more motivation to live specially on this ted but i would argue this certainly a difference between hearing that someone is simply convicted of a burglary and has an adjective w bush has hearing that you know in this kind of situation morissette acts very rationally and acts with violence that certainly paints a picture that's different than just hearing that someone has prior convictions so to conclude kamil his conviction must be reversed where the state has not met its burden of proving that he did not act in self defense the state's case was built entirely on the unreliable testimony of to be liars and the physical evidence does not support the state's version of events alternatively he says entitle to a new trial because counsel was not was ineffective for not bringing forward lynch evidence to prove that hayes was acting in s aware there's a standard of review on the first issue and that's whether or not any rational trier of fact could view this evidence take in the light most favorable to the prosecution and find the elements of the offense and certainly here there is evidence that can support the finding of aggravated battery with a firearm against the defendant it's interesting that the council today has focused on john wilson statement as if john wilson is telling the truth because the fact of the matter is the jury didn't believe john wilson and frankly i have to admit john wilson's testimony was shoddy at best clearly he was not shot by the defendant as he came in the door he was shot by mr morris said later on  this they did not know they did not they didn't believe that consul's argument is that the physical evidence doesn't match up well that physical evidence is all premised on john wilson's testimony and interesting john wilson was a person that is as you pointed out that the defense argued at trial extensively and this relates to both issues really brace both the reasonable doubt and of the lynch issue this was from the defense counsel program and wilson admitted lying to the police to the detectives how  wilson lie to you on the stand i will tell exactly hoes how he lied you on the stand he lied to you then he lied in court so john doesn't couldn't help himself but lied even yesterday wasn't enough that he lied to the police two years ago to the detect just everybody else he had to lie again here in court so i mean their all argument was premised on john wilson is a liar is a liar is a liar and a premised argument today on the notion that what john wilson was saying was true and therefore that establishes the physical evidence and in their leisure argument the notion is that john lewis wilson even though he's a liar he's a liar is a liar don't believe him he was telling he would have been telling the truth if we can assume for the purposes of argument that he really would have said what he said to the defense investigator that that's the one time he happened to not tell a lie interestingly enough even the substance of what he tells the defense investigator isn't that damning to john morris said himself because if you look at in the context what wilson is talking about is an event several weeks after this shooting it's violent but it's in response i'm not making light of it but i'm saying it's more of a self defense because this man member moore said has already had somebody brought in to go out to his car or actually in this case leave got to scare the first time get a tire iron but decide not to go back then go home go to the railroad tracks going to find it pick up a gun come back into the bar so he's already had an argument somebody who's left the bar gone to a car got a gun and come back so is it totally unreasonable for morissette if that happened to go out and follow him and head him off at the pass basically say you're not going to pull a gun on me but the bottom line though is that the jury knew that morris said had lied about several different things they knew that he had he was a convicted felon they knew it didn't work he was wrong there was no basis for that we did object to it at trial and we said that as there is no such basis but the second prong of stric prejudice and they cannot sustain their burden in this case under the prejudice prong because this would have been to live and again it posits a situation where you've got a witness that you're calling he's a liar he's a liar he's a liar is a liar but oh in this little instance two weeks later he's telling the truth about this so that that that's a tough that's a tough sell and i don't think that that you can say as a matter of law that that would have tipped the balance that that is prejudice but turning back to the  to the reasonable doubt argument there are certain things that are that are very telling even defending his own testimony on direct from his own defense counsel stated that when he came back into the bar everyone scattered why would they have scattered if he didn't have that gun and clearly he had the gun out let's just throw wilson out let's just say it wasn't as you know wilson is lying the jury didn't believe him so you know his his version of events is obviously suspect he was not shot by the defendant but shoot the defender because he probably got out in this part and when i pulled the gun out somebody hit me in the gun went off on the floor and that that's the shot that hit moore said defendant basically says i walk into a bar i'm not doing anything this man polish act on me and i shoot into the floor i'm not acting in self defense and shooting warning shots and then they're going to that's ridiculous i mean he would have fired back at more said if morris that fired first more said he even admits that he was trying to shoot the defendant that's that's a much more reasonable construction and a rational trier of fact such as this jury could certainly base their conviction on those facts where the witnesses impeach sure they were impeached but is there enough in their testimony that a rational angry he goes out to get the tire and people see him going out to get the tire iron he then doesn't go back in the tire and said he goes and gets this gun and he comes back with the gun and afterwards his damage to the door the detective testified that he didn't see damage to the door so i mean again a rational rational trier of fact could pick and choose and say that the the bar owner was correct when she knew the status of her daughter before and after i don't know that the detective specifically looking at it but he did say he didn't see any but there is evidence both ways and again where there's evidence both raised under the standard review we have to take it in the light most favorable the prosecution not to the defense for the reasons that i've stated here in the reasons i stated in the are completely unbelievable none of them i believe all in terms of how this happened and who was the initial aggressor so if we don't believe will send should we believe should we believe john morris said they certainly have a lot to lose here and it i would argue that it makes much more sense that if some was acting in a soft offensive mood that he would just try to escape why is that unbelievable that he would try to escape as opposed to trying to kill someone else that doesn't that doesn't make more sense to me it has always maintained that he was just acting in self i can see how it is a tough sell but simply because he has a gun does not mean that he was not fired upon first and also when you look at the physical evidence it doesn't appear that he did fire first this was clearly a chaotic incident but the evidence shows that he like me i would argue that if we really do look at the evidence at that conclusion is on his mind then if you look at the lynch evidence maybe if the jury had had before it the kind of evidence showing that john morris that was the kind of person who would fire first they could have come back with an acquittal on that account as well they didn't have the full picture we have a full picture of someone who he acts quickly and with violence especially in this capacity as a bouncer at the spa and not only to some stranger who comes back into the bar after some kind of altercation he does this is someone who he considers who he calls his stepfather if he's going to do that to a stepfather what did he have the same reaction to someone some stranger with whom he had words with earlier in the evening they just simply was not a fair picture in front of the jury so while it was i say on results i've come to the conclusion that his was not acting in self defense at the very least it should be a new trial because the jury didn't have the evidence it needed context of those convictions if they had the context of john morris that pulls out a gun at the slightest provocation when he's working at this spot on his own family member that's a much fuller description and