series of people who were eager to come to court to tell the jury that jamie snow had confessed to them at various times over about an eight year period and those witnesses were allowed to testify without the defense having a meaningful opportunity to cross examine them  because the best evidence that would otherwise have been available to the defense had been withheld and that was evidence that these witnesses had been incentivised or had a personal interest in the outcome or personal interest in participating in the case either because they had been offered deals because they were seeking deals because they had been pressured or or cajoled or otherwise encouraged to give the testimony to think there's eyewitness aspects to this case but it's not really an eyewitness case and two post conviction petitions that he litigated through the only courts are numerous pieces of classic brady evidence critical impeachment and numerous ways that his counsel was ineffective the state's case was already a difficult one to trial because it was built on incredible people and that's an important point for this court to consider because the main issue in mr snow's appeal here is precious you know there is evidence that was clearly withheld and there are things that his counsel clearly didn't do so the issue then becomes would this have made a difference has mr snow presented evidence that is sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome and could the owner the courts have reasonably concluded that it did taken alone or taken cumulatively and the cumulative  appeal before this court focuses on four of those people but it's not true that the other nine were just you know got up there said james no confessed to me and that's that's the end of story that's all there is that's not true these people were impeach with other evidence already at trial and there's other there's other over the course of this multiple year period between the crime and his apprehension plus his flight his concealment his false name or even that there's abundant evidence of consciousness of guilt here and that's what the case was built on you're right it's not an eyewitness case the eyewitness testimony isn't very kind of respectfully no your honor volume doesn't really mean anything in this case and the reason why is you know these are people who are giving various versions i mean they're not all saying the same thing for starters and they're giving various versions of an incredible story and as evidence starts to come out the theory or have been deals that have been withheld it raises a question about the credibility of everyone the circumstantial evidence also isn't that good either explain that reply why that's the case you know mr snow was not a great guy and so if the circumstantial evidence is going to be that he didn't want to participate in an investigation into the case in which he was ultimately convicted of obstruction or this case know had this prior criminal conviction that is not strong evidence of consciousness of guilt and the other thing about these suppose a confession when this is when you start looking at them one by one this is just a lot of smoke this is not you know people who are giving credible testimony about credible situations in which mr snow supposedly confessed that this is people who as the new evidence shows or writing to the state in the early ninety's six years before mr snow was arrested saying i'd love to help you on this case you know what do you need for me this isn't people who are saying this is ben you know hurting my heart all these years i just need to tell you that james no confessed and these are people who are eager to come forward and once a couple of these people have these problems with their testimony that they are looking for deals that they ha been threatened and controlled as mr shield told investigators on two different occasions it raises question about the course of this entire investigation this is not a case where hey you can take away three of the witnesses but there's all these other people that are left to support the conviction it is not th he said that he was in the convenience store earlier that night and the person that he describes is a person that clearly doesn't match the cell that's a person who's got this chin scar that is not jamie he didn't and then a fight jamie snow was the person that he saw so it's not an  eyewitness case at all it also raises again questions why is danny martinez testifying and saying that mr snow was the person he saw when he doesn't say that for years in the appears to make that it benefits haitian shortly before trial when he's meeting again with th solved your client's picture in the paper what defense council does do a trial is focus on the length of time that it took him to make an id and he does point out that there was a lineup where he wasn't able to identify mr snow and mr martinez says the explanation of why he wasn't good  what defense counsel doesn't get to present is that when mr martinez looked at meaux books the night the earth the day after this happened he seeing mr simmons picture in those mug books and he's not picking them out he's actually picking out other people he's saying there's two opportunity for an evidentiary hearing or discover discovery at any level of this case so there's holes but they're not mr snow fall he's done his best to try to fill the men and the other thing about danny martinez that he never got to present is this issue about jeff people and when you trial testimony carefully it's clear that the prosecutor's view of pilo is i'm going to argue that he was distracted by running this plate you know that's what the prosecution is trying to get him to say and going through all this what how long were you doing that you were fighting with the dispatcher on the phone when the defense counsel gets up to cross examine mr he simply he tries to ask what you had a good view of the door if you will give sort of wishy washy answer about that but what we know from mr p l o s interview before the trial which was not  used in his cross examination and what we now know from his affidavit is he's saying of course i was looking at that door you know i'm there because the silent alarm is told and i am trying to figure out what's going on in there and definitely nobody came out it's the difference between martinez being sort of a mistaken guy or a clueless guy and being a liar and people says this guy is a liar so why is somebody claiming that they saw jamie snow come out of the gas station when they're not mistaken that it was somebody else not jamie but they are actually lying about that that is going to be a significant difference from the case that the jury heard at trial i want to go back to the point of prejudice because again i think that's what this case is really about and ask and and go through some of the other reasons why this case would be different if it was retried and we've talked about the martinez points as well and there's even more impeachment of martinez which is also critical and there wasn't a sniff of it that was presented at the original trial and that's that he knew mr snow from growing up there's multiple people who present an affidavit saying this wasn't he's trying to pick out somebody you know just based on the description of what he's recalling to this is somebody that he actually knew he told  people you know it wasn't jamie that's not who i saw he there's the polygraph the political for reports where there's notes in the polygraph report where he's telling somebody at least some point prior to july of one thousand nine hundred four which is one that polygraph reporters from the jamie snow was not who he saw and there's obviously the paul williams testimony which although mr williams testified that aspect of what he saw was never never addressed and we talked about about carlos luna and answer the court's question he's not an eyewitness and what this jury didn't he is he could not even make a composite he could not even give the composite sketch artist enough information about the person he saw to make a composite sketch and that is a significant difference from saying you know i sort of got a view of this person i'm looking at a lineup i'm able to say this looks most like the person i saw and when you're sitting next you're sitting in front of a composite sketch artist i mean you're not even able to do enough for that person to make a sketch and that's their job that is also significant evidence that's different and we've talked as well about the brady evidence and the differences that would be there if the court doesn't have other questions at this time i'd like to save the rest of my time for a bottle if i think you argument it stated in oral argument mark these words this is not an eyewitness identification case and the reason for that is because martinez identification was not very good everyone knew that at trial everyone knew that on direct appeal everyone knew that on post that in his experience when you've hammered a witness enough eventually you risk making a mistake and opening up a new can of worms here and that's what could have happened here and so not only was there no prejudice for not failing or for not further impeaching martinez but it wasn't deficient performance either and so i think petitioner strategy then is to try to this cast this cloud over the entire proceedings by saying you know we've got these these these the brady evidence but even the brady evidence isn't what it seems so for instance schall shall testified at trial that he knew that that his the federal sentencing judge was informed about his likely cooperation in this case the only thing he testified was that he wasn't sure whether the judge took that into consideration that's the only difference between what was presented to the jury and what was available publicly available in the federal docket and so so that is the case then we also have not it's not clear that this evidence was withheld there's allegations that evidence was withheld and some of that has to be taken as true for instance the shield stuff because the state courts to get its tru not all of it and we also had several confessions that are not tainted by any brady evidence we have jodi winkler's confession in florida we have bill gaddis who is a preacher he what i witnessed someone say you know they were all of partying they were by the detail that snow told him he knocked something over on the way out and it's on the record on page one hundred thirty nine we know that there was a small knocked over by the victim's body we have to show her trying to give information about the murder to tom officers thomas and bernard be on the way back from st louis or on the way back from missouri we have the fact that he fled to missouri within a month of the crime and was hiding in that for six trial and getting to trial testimony a little bit more even some of these so called recantations are under they still contradict issues trial testimony so palumbo for example said you know first there was the face implausible but it also contradicts fisher's trial testimony which was i didn't say the boom boom thing and second i never met him and i never saw him that second time so none of that happened so these recantations aren't as helpful as they see either going back to the evidence against him we have john roberts testified that snow said these drawings were of command and asked people to remove them now she recalls she partially recanted that and said actually he didn't ask me to prejudice petitioner reasonably says you know we really need all this you know this is a cumulative error claim we have to rely on cumulative prejudice but because most of his brady claims are defaulted in one way or another you can't us i mean i responded responded tells you that what the petition or what the appellant here is trying to do is to cast a cloud that sort of gives this idea that all we're doing here is sort of saying well there's some stuff and you should think about it but that's not what this case is about is all at all and that is not what prejudice for her peers looks like well that's not what prejudice for purposes of either strickland or brady requires your honor it is evidence that sufficient to undermine the outcome and that is very clearly under the case ought not more likely than not it's not a question of i think it's likely this guy would still be convicted the question is can you still have confidence in this verdict after all of the other things that we now know was withheld and after the evidence that we now know creates problems significant problems with all of this eyewitness testimony except for here under twenty two fifty four d so our review is highly deferential that's right in the question is could the state court have reasonably concluded that this evidence was not outcome that's absolutely right your honor and a reasonable look a reasonable court could not have concluded that that's hard to say when nine of thirteen confessions witnesses remain again your honor they do not remain on take it that's absolutely correct and let's go through them right now at colombo he has this affidavit where he says i was trying to get a deal and his you know testimony in the first place says basically it when they're stopped in traffic genius like hey i killed that guy boom boom you know that evidence that testimony was already incredible he says and admits i was looking for a deal steal we've talked about and it sounds like the respondent can see that there are some issues at least there he's were camping and saying people came to missouri and pressured me until i  suspending duis in exchange for testifying in this case and that's something that was never presented at trial bill moffitt he told this witness dennis hendricks that he got a time cut in exchange for testifying kevin show got a deal in florida another jury here almost no i mean these are the things the jury didn't hear and i'm telling this court if this piece retried there would be evidence about each and every one of these thirteen people that would cause a jury to say i question that i don't believe that and more importantly why is the state calling thirteen people all of which have significant problems with their testimony the claim that jamie snow confessed and why is the state putting on danny martinez who it sounds like we all agree is not telling the truth is a liar is contradicted by the responding police officer why is that their case why is that their case in lieu of you know evidence actual evidence that jami snow did this and you're telling me there's circumstantial evidence you're telling me he's not a great guy this we did not convict people on the basis of being a usual suspects person and that is what this case boils down to when this court considers all of the new evidence this is not a verdict that in the first place was a you know easy case it wasn't a case where there's no question mr snow did it and it's definitely not the case now it's a question that everyone should ask themselves you know how can we have confidence in a verdict where we know that the state was cutting deals pressuring people and not bothering to tell the defense that and that's when the jury would have questions about to you know why is this the way the state has to make the case against this person in in the absence of actual evidence that mr snow did it and you go back one more time on the brady point you know the state the state says well you know if you if you don't get them all then you haven't won again that's not the standard for undermining confidence but second of all as we've argued in our briefs the jury would have a reason to question all of these witnesses in light of evidence that clear evidence that some of them were specifically incentivized by these deals and it would cause them to question the impeachment evidence that mr snow either had for each and every one of these witnesses or that he now has in light of the evidence has been discovered about them  district court the state court you know never held never entered hearing on these issues so that's why the court now has the record it's had you know he chose a jury trial because he wanted a jury to hear all the evidence and to make a decision about his innocence or his guilt and always asking this court to do is to remand this case for an eviden hearing so he can be fully heard on all of the evidence that he's presented which does undermine confidence in the outcome of his conviction thank you very much johnson case is taken under advisement and removed to