it please the court counsel my name is allison shah and i represent schuyler jordan at schuyler jordan's jury trial counsel committed to substantial errors one of call mission and one of omission these errors were devastating to his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial both errors involve the testimony of the state's key witness train gregory the only other person in the car from which shots were fired first council listed it from gregory that jordan sent somebody to shoot him there was no strategic purpose for eliciting this extremely prejudicial testimony even if there had been such a purpose counsel did not make use of it he never mentioned this fact again not in closing and did nothing to mitigate the damage he caused by listening from gregory that jordan had sent somebody to shoot him this testimony was damaging because it was a similar type of crime involving a shooting in the  not only makes jordan look bad but it also bolsters gregory's testimony as it makes it look like jordan needed to take out the only person who could have could identify him as the shooter definitively theory of defense was that gregory was the shooter not to not jordan this testimony undermined that ferrie was the key witness and the only person in the car there were other people ways to impeach gregory not only was he implicated in the crime being the only other other individual who could have fired the shots but he was also convicted of and on probation for obstruction of justice in this case in addition he implicated jordan after he was told to be a witness and not a suspect which brings me to the next area that counsel committed that he failed to properly introduce the evidence that gregory substantially changed just story after being told to be a witness and not  suspect counsel recognize the importance of this evidence and clearly believe that the shift in gregory's statement was motivated by being told was motivated by being told to be a witness but after counsel attempted to question gregory about this and was prevented counsel simply gave up he was told how he could introduce the testimony however instead of calling the officer and then recalling gregory counsel dropped the ball this this error was then compounded by the fact that coun however the crucial fact here is that gregory's a court from what counsel had represented on the record that gregory's testimony did not make that substantial change to implicate jordan until he was told to be a witness and not a suspect the jury needed to hear that key the key thing that got him it wasn't that it wasn't just a matter of after talking awhile that he then said ok it was joran that's an issue ting but it was after the officers told him make yourself a witness not a felt the necessity of raising it i at this point in the proceedings based on what was on the record simply be to prevent jordan from being in this situation later on on post convention where they argue that the state would argue that it had been forfeited by not raising a direct appeal to the extent that it had been apparent from the record  regarding finally regarding the state's contention that there was no plane air the fact the problem with this these errors were is that they involve the state's he witness and that the remaining test identification testimony identifying jordan as the shooter was weak and inconsistent under one of the witnesses to the shooting said just said an hour after the shooting that he could not make an identification of the shooter because it all happened so quickly he only identified the shooter jordan as the shooter much later at the trial itself in addition angela the other witness to identify in that trial was  inconsistent she said she stated that the gun had been big and so her when it was actually a black forty five caliber handgun and also has testified that she performed c p r on anthony when both andrea and the officer who arrived on the scene testified questioning of mr gregory that came out with that one statement that that someone was sent to shoot the d mr gregory it we assert that this was matter of tr able to get the information that he wanted even if you didn't have the actual statement by the whole police officer so i believe or prefer otherwise covers the remainder of the issue so the other questions just a few points you raised first regarding counsel's argument that the evidence was closely balance and that the error was not prejudicial our position is and  the evidence shows that that because the this these errors involve the state's he witness gregory hughes the only other person who in the bar as the state pointed out that there is all this evidence that it was clear that someone in the car fired the shots which is true which is why it was all the more all the more important and why was he to jordan's defense to argue that it was gregory and not fired those shots the errors that coun committed in asking gregory did he send did he shoot you and in not getting in front of the jury that that he changed his statement after he was told to be a witness and not a suspect these make gregory  all the more convincing that he was not the shooter and made jordan look even more like the shooter because of the fact that they especially the testimony that jordan had sent someone to shoot him paint jordan as a hardened criminal who has on what it was it was the identification by gregory by andrea and by angela all the other evidence merely shows that someone in the car fired the gun that was recovered we don't know which one of those people it was  addition the state also points out that council had to destroy gregory's gave credibility and that was he to his defense which we agree however counsel did the ad did the use utilize the absolutely worst way to destroy his credibility in asking gregory if he in asking gregory if jordan shot him this could have only gone wrong and there was no need to elicit this evidence