matters versus warden thank you ron it may please the court the only way that matters could have prevailed a trial was to put the gun that he won't in the hands of bill arnold to create a reasonable doubt about who used the gun to shoot the j store clerk to do this mr davis the trial lawyer had to challenge the credibility of arnold creel and harris yet inexplicably davis failed to use materially inconsistent accorded state prior statements particularly as those statements related to possession of the gun in question and ask you about that because in your and your brief you say i think it's in your reply brief maybe a pa seven you say as to the possession of the gun immediately before the crime and that was a key fact you say that the incidents reported about the truck shootings would have provided decisive support that was your s word is that right decisive i mean i get it that it supports your position on balance but is it decisive it is because creel and arnold denied that the truck shootings happened so it not only supports medders testimony that the how the trucks were shot but it also directly refutes creole and arnold and detective jack boyett who testified that there was no evidence to support medders claim of the truck shootings only medders say so so it's three for if you later but weren't they go and bar hopping is there anything in the record about what for example between the brown truck shooting and the robbery murder where were  they i believe that the record establishes that they were driving on the highway seventeen area which is where this gypsy store was located and that part of the brunswick area i believe  hopping happened both while jimmy medders was passed out on his couch and immediately after they pat picked him up at his home so they rode around for an hour and didn't stop anywhere according to the evidence and it's not clear from i believe it's fair to say that metters just experienced incredibly shocking event where he was physically present as it happened the fact that people don't immediately disclose things to police can be and questioned by police officers and he denied any knowledge of the shooting but he has been to the store his testimony you're right his testimony was that he did that on the instruction of randy harris who told him that morning when they met about ten o'clock not to say anything about the shooting now admittedly that was a silly stupid damning response but here's the point your honor john johnson the prosecutor in this case fully explored medders failure to make that disclosure by contrast davis never impeached harris even though harris did the same thing at eleven o'clock with jack boy it understand that harris wasn't there harris wasn't i'm sorry i'm sorry harris wasn't there harris wasn't there at that murder the robbery murder harris said he right before trial and the jury could infer could they not that he was waiting to hear what the others had to say in their final story was and to shape his story around it for a stronger it was six months before trial that he was interviewed by boy in jail but your point is well taken and i think it's important but it was twelve to thirteen months after the shoot yes you're right about that oh boy did he not  to come talk to him he did so he waited a year and then said this is my story he did but the point is the jury knew that and was able to weigh that in terms of judging medders credibility because i agree with you that we must look at this from the jury's perspective not our after the fact calculation of the credibility and where as johnson brought out the delay johnson brought out the non disclosures that you referenced davis did none of that although it existed with harris creel and arnold and davis didn't use any of the pre trial past performance deficiency except i tend to agree i believe it was a court who said food stamps would have come in so failure to object to food stamps is not performance deficient understand davis didn't do any of this what i'm doing is taking all of your evidence that you developed in the remained hearing and adding it to the evidence that was presented at trial yes and trying to decide whether there's a reasonable probability of a different result had it all been mixed up but from the jury yes arnold is committing the crime and putting himself in jeopardy of lethal injection well actually it was electric chair putting him in line for that to get money that he doesn't take any money matters and i no matter says oh he told me to do it but if i'm on that jury i'm saying wait a minute he goes in there own goes in there to commit the crime to get money and then he doesn't take money matters does that i mean you're arguing to the jury that that's not important that's not relevant that's not incriminating that's not tell me what your argument is my argument is that it's not i'm not suggesting that's not relevant that is a relevant concern the problem with it is that your questions are  suggestive that the three men who were there and about which there's no distinguishing physical evidence in this case that three men who were there acting in a normal fashion after killing the clerk what turned out to be thirty odd dollars after having spent twelve to fifteen hours drinking and taking drugs so it's clear from the testimony that they fled from the scene to gather in essence freaking out as i think their description they get to the shady acres trailer park and then they split up and it's as much an oversight that matters doesn't give money to them as that it was intentional there is no proof one way or the other matters testified somewhere along what had been and to be i mean i'm sorry somewhere along the line and then he offered the money or tried to give the money to on a normal wouldn't take him wrong there was testimony to that effect in the car as they were at shady acres trading driving of the car arnold had been driving medders took over the driving and went home from there so i don't disagree that that is a factor but whether medders and arnold should have split the money didn't think to split the money or intentionally did not that doesn't answer the question of who had medders gun and pulled the trigger the difficulty against this gets back to my first question is i'm just not sure that there is no pun remotely intended sort of smoking gun evidence about who had the gun immediately between immediately before the crime and if not i mean it seems to me given the standard that you're having to contend with here you need something that is pretty well decisive and i'm just not sure that the impeachment of that with the inconsistent stories even plus the truck incident reports really puts the gun in anyone else's hand immediately before the murder i tend to agree with you that this was a credibility case there wasn't physical evidence there's not a video or photos there aren't fingerprints what this case was about was credibility arnold says matters matters as arnold and that's where the adversarial process broke down to the point where we all know now that there were these material inconsistent statements to the point where john johnson falsely told the jury on closing that his witnesses had told the same stories since day one that's a quote from his closing have they stuck with their story if they told the same thing if you look at randy harris bill or no greg creel t record here harris testifies at the trial that the defendant came up to him in his motel room and said to him in substance that the defendant quote blew the man's head all for thirty eight dollars earlier pretrial that the defendant confessed to killing someone with thirty eight dollars but did not know which part of the body was shot right that's one that's one difference one impeachment yes he asked the officers where was there in earlier point even before that when eris made a different statement yes ok tell me about that so the confession supposedly happens at three in the morning after the shooting occurs when harris is first contacted by a boy yet at his shop at ten or ten thirty in the morning harris says i haven't seen those guys since six pm the night before totally taking out the confession scenario totally taking out the fact that he spent the morning with creel and arnold helping them get their story straight so there are two to stages so the  was i know nothing about it the second account was he confessed to killing him for thirty eight bucks i just don't know where it was shot and then at trial it changed i knew it was head off because that's what he told me right and along with the confession he says that metters dumped his bullets on the bed and there were two spent shells the police knew about that statement within seven eight hours of the bullets being dumped yet they are neither ball one's nor brown if i have this right are able to identify the shooter they don't see the shot that if the truck and bounced off the truck cause the dying in the truck or anything like that extrinsically who the shooter was all a credibility contest on whether the shootings even happened that's where we started ok so i want to go back to the question the chief judge carnes asked you at the beginning yes the period of time that the truck shootings took place in relationship to when the homicide occurs in the jiffy stores how long it's about two hours but when our break brown hour break so what we know is that there were two shootings there's some evidence that one of the others had a motive other than matters but we don't know did the shooting and we know that they did bar hopping during that period of time i think that part of what i mean if i have that wrong it's around there yes and what we know is the motive for the shooting at the trucks points to arnold and has nothing to do with matters this all came out at the remained hearing which is the relevant post conviction hearing in this case so medders doesn't know keith bowen medders did not know the browns creel and arnold had just had a fight with keith bowen while mentors was passed out and brown had been in what i would characterize as a feud with creoles family is in laws are called the brockington so feuding ongoing with them at a later point we learned they were pending charges involving an altar cations but that wasn't introduced as a leave of the tough thing for me and i don't mean to sound like a broken record i'm sympathetic to the position you're articulating but you still need something that fairly clearly put the gun in someone else's hands immediately before the murder right i mean all you have all sort of granting everything you just said what we have is fairly compelling evidence that arnold and or creel had a motive to be handling the gun an hour to an hour to two hours before the murder right and i'll guess i just wonder if on the basis of that we can sort of get to the standard that no reasonable jurist could have concluded anything other than that this would have been so in considering the prejudice of whether there's a probability of a different outcome a failure to make the adversarial system work i don't believe it's our burden to prove decisively that matters that arnold had the gun in his hand i guess maybe i've used that word i don't i don't mean to load that word with too much significance it just me all i mean to say is that given the hey be a standard that you have to overcome yes it seems to me that the evidence needs to be willing to use a technical legal term of art pretty doggone compelling or something right i mean it's got to be needle moving it has to be needle moving and i think you have to consider that respectfully in the context of the trial that happened so not in some is it a microwave get a biscuit or water and suddenly it with and without warning is the way matters put it the store clerk is shot to death krill didn't know it was going to happen just like matters says he didn't know it was going to happen it was sudden unexpected cruel had nothing to do it it's undisputed he had nothing to do with nobody's ever testified that he shot the door  clerk no it's arnold louis ok so why are those cruel commit perjury and put him in line for all kinds of problems and say that it blast to cover up a capital murder and put him in line for perjury and all of the cons of problems because he knows the guy if you look at the impeaching statements your honor he also lied about knowing there was a gun he doesn't want to involve himself in the crime but he doesn't have to lie not to be the trigger man and not to be guilty of murder but as between matters who he doesn't know and arnold who he does know and who he spent the morning plotting their response with remember matters goes his own way after shady acres creel go to a trailer and immediately call harris and then they spend five hours together working up their story well speaking of harris let me ask about the scene and all the orders or the briefs about this and i pointed out earlier when they stop stop it's shady acres before the three men split up so creel and arnold could have had knowledge i'm sorry discussing i didn't know that i didn't say it because i don't know it but may have  but he was trying to get arnold he said he was trying to get arnold to take the money matters testified to them but what evidence is there that harris was told how much money the together before anyone went to the police and we know from mentors testimony that harris told mentors to keep quiet so it's clear that harris and mentors were together at ten in the morning ten thirty in the morning and therefore matters told her could have it's not clear from the it's in for i'm he could have testified that he didn't there wasn't a focus at the trial on how harris knew the thirty eight dollars in part because no one was asking about that i agree with you that it's a notch against matters that it was it was actually between thirty one and thirty eight is what that all of these factors that you and judge newsome are pointing out are all the factors that johnson directly pinned on matters and there wasn't any pushback with the evidence that could have made this a credibility contest as it should have been with a skeptical jury but what we have to do is project that it was a credibility contest and see if there's a reasonable probability of a different result yes or and so i think of this in terms of johnson getting away with misleading the jury i think of this in terms of this this trial judge twice instructed the jury on falsus a new no if a witness is impeached you can disregard the entirety of that witness's testimony because davis did not impeach the witnesses that instruction only applied to metters and  the ability to have the jury disregard the witness testimony from creel harris and arnold i think that the case law i have a minute left the case law i think that's relevant to this is smith versus wainwright seven ninety nine fed second fourteen forty two from this circuit i think by analogy weary versus cane which is a brady case but the materiality standard  brady is the same as the prejudice standard and i see i think we're on pila and wigan and seniors are also relevant to this particularly as to the requirement that the probing analysis re weighing the evidence after the fact when you know everything requires careful weighing of that which existed versus a reweigh under terry williams case  think those are the relevant cases and we come back to the key point that reasonable doubt about who possessed matters gun and shot the clerk was the whole strategy here that was the defense and failing to deal with the truck shootings right the question here though is not we're not debating whether councils performance was the fisher and what would the bathing is whether or not looking through the prism of whether the state supreme court could reasonably draw the conclusion it did well put firstly i know that it will court could have found what they found that's a tall order so you have to go through the burden of strickland superimposed on top of which is the lens of the depth of your you can just answer me if you if you like i think if you look at the analysis that was employed here by tootin and found persuasive by the georgia supreme court they did not do a reweigh they misapplied the established strickland and william standard because they considered the evidence to be so prejudicial so overwhelming  in part me asked the question differently what a reasonable court find no prejudice or in this record you have to it could just give me if you remember from the record i couldn't find it in anything on what i didn't have your instructions what exactly did the court instruct the jury in answer to question number five you said the tr advised the jury accordingly but what did it say you can't consider anything that hasn't been presented to you are words in essence you have to rely on the evidence that's been presented ok so you didn't tell them they didn't tell them there was no evidence there had been shooting there was nothing he didn't tell them there hadn't been a shooting is what i'm getting oh no he did not he said nothing in the record rely on the record basically all right let me ask you this what exactly does the record show about the first search by the officers other than the fact there were a bunch of them and they searched the record shows who the officers were when the search happened and that it didn't result in the finding of the murder weapon the officers were brunswick police and g b i there's not a specific what i would call blow by blow nobody asked him what i was getting that nobody asked him during the trial remand hearing anything else did you look under the water but no it is is there in mercifully i never had a waterbed but is there anything in the record indicate where the gun was now just under the water but you know those those things sit on the frame i guess now they sit on the floor with the premier around them because they're too heavy said it was merciful let me ask you more than you wanted to know a couple more ok so cruel didn't have the gun no i'm still puzzled about cruel and his role in this thing and let me tell you something else and this is not arguing with you i'm just giving you an opportunity electric chair you've got arnold same interest you've got krill much lesser interest or incentive and then you've got harris with a lesser incentive to  your characterization of the fact that there may have been a lot of misstatements going on here creates an opportunity for a mouse murder all three of them  this mix and if creel at mit's knowledge of the gun creole admits anything that comes close to an understanding that this robbery could happen he's right in the middle of a malice murder charge so it's not as if because you have three of them out there shooting around this gun arnold goes in with a gun it would not be unusual for someone in creel's position to say i knew the gun was there in arnold's pocket and the murder happens he says he's taken the position that he has to disown any knowledge of the gun and he does that from his prior statements to that trial testimony and i think that's the shortcoming with respect to arnold i think with harris it's clear then aren't i meant it's respect to creole i think with harris i think it's clear that arnold's his first cousin he was the first call that arnold made and he coordinated this prosecution historical fact question  state's thirty nine re read brief there was no evidence presented to the remained court that matters was receiving food stamp you said something your prior in your reply brief with patient the record that he was receiving food oh i'm sorry there's a police report dated october fourteenth where officer burton medlin interviewed mrs matters and recorded mrs medlars medders as informing the police that she was a recipient of food stamps brief in their reply brief actually cites to the state hey b s court's order which is not part of the record for this court because it's not obviously part of the remembered record and that particular court order cites to mr boy yet testimony which was from the state court where he says he thought they were receiving food stamps but there was no actual evidence that they were receiving there are a couple of other factual questions that you asked regarding the bowen and the brown shootings the bowen shooting we know occurred at twelve thirty however in the morning however we do not know what time the brown shooting occurred unless i have completely misread this record several times at the remain robert brown andrea brown testified that they found the bullet the next day and that was around one thirty or actually the adrian found it with her neighbor but they did not know what time the shooting occurred the said the testimony would be from mr matters as to when that occurred what do we know about bar hopping during that two hour period of time from the record i agree with those accounts i do not think the record is clear as it say anything about that it's mr creel and mr arnold stated th ey went bar hopping in their pretrial statements and they stated at trial that they don't give a specific time as to when the bar hopping happened if in regard to the shooting because of course they denied the truck shooting  i can ask you just a question about the truck shooting one i think of the more disturbing things cases that is boy testimony where he says you know he was asked trial did you have any reason to think that these guys you know might have been involved in the truck shooting and he says nothing other than the fact that matters told them and then you've got this police were the police reports that just i mean he knew about right i think i understand he had put them in the file so it was that i think it was truthful testimony when you look at the or and did you have any reason to to doubt that they were telling the truth the only thing that i had indicate that they did this is jimmy matter saying they did it doing the actual shooting so you have no other reason he said there there is no other evidence to indicate that they did that now i mean really i mean that the police report on the second of the two right the person at least implied that they thought creel had been up to it but he had no actual evidence that mr arnold did the shooting that anyone else did the shooting that's how i read the question of the way it was post mr boyer do you have any evidence that they did the actual shooting that it wasn't for example matters that did the shooting and also i think that that was how possibly how or detective boyle understood that particular question i will just tell you that the combination of that testimony and the prosecutor's closing where he says my unlike their people my guys have told the same story all the way down the line is troubling understand that combination of those two things is pretty troubling because you know whether it's not that that itself demonstrates prejudice but it plugs into the theory of prejudice in the case that you know the failure to impeach the credibility of the witnesses and the failure to bring about this corroborating evidence might have been needle shifting i would say that a fair managers could say that it was not needle and in the case of the prosecutor certainly to them that was in that the prosecutor's state but in closing argument if i have it right in words or substance was essentially the same story had been told by all three of our witnesses from day one is that not what he said yesterday marks i'm not that i was just stating a we know unambiguous lee at the same story was not told by all three defendants from day one that's right not only do we know that as an abstract matter we know that harris gives three accounts first account i don't know nothing second  changes there may be powerful reasons to explain why but he goes from i know nothing who i know the defendant told me how he shot him and how much money he made off with and then we have substantially different accounts these are the all old creel about matters that you may argue are extrinsic to the homicide but i certainly basic to the lead up to the homicide circumstances of what happened within two hours of the homicide and yet we have the prosecutor on ambiguously and sweepingly telling this jury they come up in the initial closing argument by the prosecutor or was that in response to that i mean the statement of the prosecutor their story remained the same from day one ers and obviously mr day there were only two closing arguments correct at the guilt phase the defendant went first prosecutor one second and that was it yes even though the prosecutor bore the burden yes that's our member the record  the the sort of the three phase answer the judge marcus is asked you about about you know sort of the what he knew about the shooting where the shots were fired where they hit the body but also this bit about the gun being under the bed initially he says well you know i just sort of brainstorm that thought about it and this was where matters told me sometimes he had things and then at trial he says no no no matters wife told me i mean harris was just all over the place why don't they care harris in his second statement when he actually went the police station and made his official statement to the police he stated i don't know where harris i don't know where matters would have hit he was where the night is when even then he thought about it really thought about it and then he called the police two days later on the sixteenth and said you know here is told i met her still matters told me that sometimes you had things then a trial he says he said that the wife told him perhaps the wife did tell him prior to trial and he did not want to say that but regardless there's no way that mr harris could have known about the thirty eight dollars and less matters told him and if you look at matters trial testimony specifically states nobody discussed anything we didn't say a word from the time we left the jiffy mart until we got to the trailer park so there's no evidence there that they would have known how much money that was so that had to have come from mr matters to mr harris and i don't disagree that you could have impeached mr harris but ultimately his testimony is the same that matters told him he shot somebody for thirty eight dollars is that a problem for you i think i might have just realized this this morning and reviewing that remain the court's decision is it a problem for you at least for someone like me who thinks that harris is all over the place and i don't think the remaining court ever addresses any issue concerning harris they talk about the truck shooting reports and they talk about the arnold creel inconsistency is but i don't recall and you can correct me if i'm wrong that they ever addressed the harris inconsistent i don't think they necessarily addressed the harrison consistencies but i don't think that the core is required to discuss each and every piece of evidence that is put before them and i do believe that the police reports were given sort of in mass to the trial court and although detective boyle yet was questioned about some inconsistency in there i don't recall if he was questioned about the actual in concert mr harris's statement i could be wrong about that but the issue was not briefed to the remaining court either that's not to say that the remain court didn't consider everything that was put but let me go back again to what defense counsel did and did not do and again it's not with a whether counsel was deficient or not speaking for myself i think the answer is that he was at least in the main well probably not with respect to the food stamp in the main with respect to the inquiry of these prior matters but let me ask you and i want to go to prejudice what impeachment did defense counsel actually met out against these three around eight or nine thirty by arnold in creole and then later picked up so mr davis put up wayne martin who stated that matters came home and then he back to the best western and talked to randy harris met or talked around here in a manner that flatly contradicted the accounts of all inquiry up at least in that respect there was also the testimony of matters brother in law and sister in law who testified that they saw matters arnold in creole shortly before the crime i understand stacey matters matters brother in law worked for the best westerner i mean this western steer and he was making a bank deposit that night and he just made a deposit and me witnesses in his case in chief when he got up to cross examine creel harris and what if anything did he do well unfortunately did not use their first trust and i understand that he didn't do that i'm asking what arnold and grill denied them let me ask you my last question when it came to closing argument what if anything to defense counsel say about the credibility of these principal government witnesses harris well it was arnold crillon harris all testified that after the crime they they did meet up that mr harris can pick them up from the shady acres trailer park and they went back to their house and they talked and that was presented at trial and mr davis relied upon that he also pointed out certain things that were inconsistent about mr arnold and mr creoles testimony regarding the crime in that mr arnold testified that he parked the car one place in front of the  that he parked the car in another place he generally attack their their credibility in the character saying that they got together and came up with this story because they were friends and related things i'm sure he said a lot more than that but that's what i remember at this time thank you regarding the search of the water bed there is a police statement or a supplemental report that was part of the remain record that stated on october the fourteenth when they did the initial search of matters home they did not look under the waterbed that's what it states and then the this statement it is in a supplemental report i believe it's by detective it's either detective did mark or detective boyet the remain court order i'm sorry it was not numbered and i did not write that down i can find that for the court and it just it just plainly states in the supplemental report that they did not look under the water bit and that's in the record to lift up the waterbed a way to get to it it wasn't you know it was like a foot or two feet and they lifted it up to get to the to the actual murder weapon and you had a question also about how the court instructed on the notes i think my brief is a little misleading and it stated that the notes came out separately but they all came out together in the court instructed them all at the same time i think this case really comes down to this would a fair minded jurist have ultimately believed matters version of the crime given inconsistent season that could have happened with arnel crillon harris and i think that's what the state the state court struggled with and the district court struggle with doing the reason a probability of a different outcome analysis because when you look at what matters said how the crime happened it didn't make any sense he claims that all three go in there  to heat up his dainty sausage biscuit in the microwave then arnold shoots mr anderson and then he tells mr matters to get the money out of the cash register and the testimony from the manager  the manager of the store said that you know there was a forty nine cents ring up the two cents tax and so the person would have to go behind their habits have known what but buttons to push and this was part of mr johnson's closing argument  part of his questions of matters so as not to put in whatever amount he would not had to hit the right tax button because things are taxed at different rates yet you know groceries and and tobacco and alcohol and then hit the right button to get the sales take the money out then mr matter states that they all just recently walk out of the place they drive in silence to the shady acres and then arnold in creole get out and arnold asked him if he wants the gun and he says no you keep it he just let a man murder somebody with his own weapon and he told the gentleman to keep it and then the person who did the crime asked for wanted none of the money just doesn't make a lot of sense but when you look at the concerning the money itself as i understand the testimony from the store somewhere between thirty one and thirty eight dollars is missing from the register right and they don't know the exact amount when the defendant matters is arrested he's found in possession of well we would call bait money only in the sense that there was a more he had in his possession a bill that had been pretty marked so we bills had been the more he acts to the bill his possession and his one dollar bill and a five dollar bill yes there were the bait money that was found on him and then a torn one dollar bill which was a bait dollar was found in his home and t wallet the food stamps were actually found in his field jacket he had on a field jacket when they came out to first speak to him he came to the door the officers were there and i think they and he had a twenty two pistol in there and so they fell in the other the other pocket and they were they were food stamps and that going back to the store the store keeper remarked all of the cash that was in there are only two bills or drugs i'm talking about the document that purports to reflect some kind of charge for trafficking in cocaine yes that was in matters wallet when it was  reflect the court or does it reflect anything more particular than a torn item saying trafficking in cocaine it's yeah the the actual it's a citation and the top part is torn in i care member  can't remember if it reflects the core if it was torn off or not but that was all sent out en masse to the jury but there was no mention of that citation during the argument nor was it brought to the jury's attention it  exhibits all go into the jury room they did including the citation that is far i mean it states directly after the trial a court charge the jury he said ok we're going to send all the evidence out with the jury so as far as we know it when i pretrial that he had money and food stamps now it's cruel and arnold both stated again that he had food that he had food stamps after the robbery mr harris didn't specifically stated food stamps he said the stuff that was dumped out on his bed was it on the food stamps if i have it right boy it makes a note that's part of the police file regarding food stamps quote i'm able to trace who claims to store correct is that all couple of quick points responding to issues that came up during the state's argument harris actually provided three critical points of testimony he had the confession that we've talked about he had the waterbed that we talked about and we've only barely alluded to the motive harris is the only one who provided the motive and that ties into that cocaine citation my recollection of having seen the actual i have this right that the day before the robbery the defendant purportedly told him that the defendant older drug dealer two thousand dollars words to that was his testimony at the trial in the earlier iterations of his a carol you know there were two one in the middle of the night where he denies knowing anything and then there's a second one where he says the defendant came to me and told me he shot him and god made off with thirty eight bucks does he say anything about the statement by matters they before the robbery that matters zero to drug dealer two thousand  pretty sure he didn't i don't think there's a mention of the two thousand dollar threats by a drug dealer i don't think that's in his statement was recorded it's like a fifteen page statement that's transcribed so number one harris had those three parts i think it's worse than i think it was judge noosa mentioned when you asked about whether harris whether judge tootin analyzed the changes in the harris situation he didn't number one but number two he relied on the prejudice as overwhelming based on harris's testimony as if harris had been an impeached so he cites the confession testimony and he cites the waterbed finding of the gun without any indication that he analyzed any of the impeachment that related to harris which is particularly curious in this case because he did analyze the impeachment as a related to creel in arnold so he completely missed that harris had his credibility challenged  johnson did harp on the food stamps in his closing at one point johnson in his closing said that kind of sarcastically medders forgot that he had those food stamps in his pocket he brought it up opening and i think it was the opening as well but certainly in the closing brings that back home food stamps in the pocket on top of the law i doubt the truth same story since day one  that was actually i disagree he had a note that said we can't tie these food stamps to this robbery but if somebody goes by and robs a bank and he gets twenty dollar bills and they arrest him and he's got a twenty dollar bills in his wallet so the legitimate i guess he forgot about those twenty dollar bills i mean that's not me i didn't say he had these food stamps and traced to the store certainly yeah i think your honor that the issue with the food stamps knowing as we all do now that they couldn't be traced is really just another failure of the adversarial process certainly matters had it on him you can mention it like the twenty dollar bills as your honor says but somebody should have told the jury legal recipient he had a right to have those  and co counsel as well we'll take that case under submission