submitted that there are in fact three defenses to this time limit problem the first is in fact it would be under twenty to forty four d which actually would suggest that he would not the time limit for the other two defenses we've raised the was involved in that the problem that was that was never developed was the two people the two people that were in the car the two women were never charged in this crime those people both made statements  people who went down to the river i didn't see how they were particularly helpful your honor the two women statements that were present in the car up until they got to the lake those two women one of them says that she didn't ever see who put mr brace in the car or who was involved in duct taping him that by itself is something that actually actual innocence but you don't have to show it under an actual innocence playing we don't have to show that he's actually innocent we have to show that there's evidence that casts doubt on the verdict in the case and i think it casts doubt because you can't be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that mr ramirez was involved in the kidnapping if and it goes back to the motive that the kidnapping is the motive that the kidnapping is something different other than what the state presented which was that there was this money that these girls had lost as a result of this victim or that he had stolen their money if that motive doesn't exist then i think don't see how when there was other evidence so the fact that you've got these other witnesses and so we can't say that i just don't see the exoneration in going to the other the other keep point there is the fact that there was no that the fingerprint evidence which was never had there was his fingerprints on the trunk of the car mr ramirez fingerprints were not on the trunk of the car so in fact had that been brought to the trial court's attention i think that that is at least suggestive or at least you can argue circumstantially that mr ramirez his fingerprints definitely weren't there and mr jordan the co defendants were there because the two women who were not even ever interviewed in this case by coun those two women were charge there certainly that's questionable why they would have been charged i guess that goes outside the scope of what this issue is but what's important about the fact that they were charged they were interviewed by the police one of them and that the victim had ripped off these two girls and stolen money from them that as just as to get him back they were going to duct tape him and take his car or something that's what the evidence  however those two girls when they talked to police later they discount that theory their statements to another witness that go back and forth we don't remember what happened and then another statement that they take an l s t of the time and so they don't recollect what happened that they weren't there that they were there but that mr romero is left with them they said several different things all of those things cast doubt on what the state's theory of the case this which is that they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in this case didn't interview those people despite the fact that the two of them were present for the entire situation from the party to the events in the cemetery and the kidnapping and then on to the lake and then back those two women arguably were either accomplices are involved however they were never charged and they were never interviewed by mr him by mr or mr romero as it was not even aware that there was a transcript of those two women's testimony and then the third woman who was picked up later in most of sleep until two thousand and two when he happened to see a codefendant on the chain going to sheridan that was the first time he was aware that there were actually transcripts from these witnesses what the district court will right upon with statements in the personal restraint edition that discussed summaries of the witness statements mr ramirez certainly was aware that the police had talked to these people but the point is he wasn't aware of what the people had to say or in fact that there are been tape recorded statements that in fact have been prepared as when the summaries that isn't the first of those and to alert you to the witnesses i mean you don't have to some sort of tertiary clue what the witness may have had to say the problem with a defense lawyer that only meets with his client twice before a murder trial is that that person isn't going to know what each witness is going to what each witness has said and will say if they're if they're of subpoenaed mr america is because he only met with mr earle two times was only aware of other than police witnesses terrence cole testifying against him and that was the only witness statement he had ever received so while mr ramirez may have had some abstract recollection or you know known in some way that the police probably talk to the other people in the car because that's common sense sort of thing it doesn't mean that mr americas knew exactly what these people had said to the police and what the inconsistent statements were that go directly to the heart of the issue which was the kidnapping the events in the cemetery become paramount because that's where the whole kidnapping charge comes from if the events surrounding that kidnapping are can or could have been cast into doubt which i think with good defense i think we can show plus evidence that undermines or impeaches the credibility of the witnesses and i'm quoting from schlub persons fell on that i think that that's the standard here not that we're absolutely convinced that he would be innocent but that there are things that cast doubt on on the verdict including things that impeach either the credibility of witnesses or that undermine the witnesses or new evidence now whether or not mr earle knew of the fingerprint evidence i have no idea i can't imagine what possible strategic decision would suggest not bringing that evidence forward and again the key events come down  but the duct tape happened to be in my backpack but i don't know how it got there i mean those are all layers of what was happening with those witnesses who clearly probably had some interest in protecting themselves to what they c standards of judgement human history particularly those making many more innocent the few that they're probably guilty but i think it does cast doubt on what took place as at that point in time when mr brace is placed in a car that's just that's what we're talking about because there isn't any beyond reasonable doubt with the fatal blow and the judge clearly cut that out but on a felony murder you don't have to be connected with the fatal blow and so the real question is can you connect him with the with the accompany that some of which does cast doubt on what took place and we are still waiting to find out what it is th just so you know where i'm going i haven't heard him so far i've heard things that say that there are other people involved too i've heard people say i didn't see something in a way that sounds from suspicious but none of that takes him out of the circle well i mean what you have the bottom line is there's no one that places him there involved in the actual finding and placing of mr brace in the truck he was convicted on or right but there was no there's no evidence beyond the co defend testimony which doesn't change from which is telling the strength of this other evidence and i'm saying it doesn't change anything why i think it does change something i guess what i think it changes is when you look at the fingerprint evidence the other two people that were present who clearly made self serving and impeachable statements that casts doubt on what did take place there in my opinion you know i think it does and the reason i say that is because i think that what you're left with is not knowing for sure whether or not mr meros was involved in the kidnapping if we don't know for sure whether he was involved in the kidnapping or not then that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was and you have we look at all the evidence that was and this is hard to do want to vacuum because what we're trying to do is say all this evidence that was never offered that was never investigated that was never looked at would suggest that other events may have happened at the cemetery when mr brace was put in the truck and i think that that's i mean of course these other people didn't come forward and say no mr meros wasn't involved i did it because they have no reason to do that i mean they clearly i had already walked try to equitable tolling i'd like to first address the actual innocence tolerable claim of actual innocence and i would say that the as this court has pointed out that the evidence that was evident that there was something wrong he was stumbling because he had been duct taped mr ramirez told an officer i was there i'm being blamed because i was there but i wasn't the person   testimony of mr cole was not adequately impeached however the prosecutor completely exposed the fact that mr cole had initially lied to the police that february twenty seventh and twenty he were alleges that he was unaware that there were actual statements that were made to the police but mr ramirez brought up in a p r p that he filed in october eleventh of two thousand and one that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate read police statements or the summary of police notes and call  the fact that he found out that there were actual transcripts of statements in february of two thousand and two is just additional information it's not the factual basis of the claim the district court years after he filed sapience corpus petition saying that he did not know that the other individuals i've spoken to please was incredible as it was not supported by the record finally them saying that he is in the i am you for long periods of time therefore had a very limited access and there were several times when he has legal papers were taken from him what i think important for this court to know and i think if you look at your one hundred fifty three and one fifty five the dates when he stated that he lost his legal paperwork to true search those particular dates occurred after the habeas corpus petition was filed and those dates were not included in the determination of the statutory period a period of time where his property had not been delivered to him that was a period of about seventeen days even if we assume that the period ran not from june first to june twenty second from  and june twenty second a period of about forty days he has he was corpus petition was over six months late in being fi statements that language i think came out of the court of appeals opinion out of division three that there was some discussion about witness statements or summaries of witness you know that's a far cry from knowing in fact that there are transcripts that that exist of witness statements and those transcripts say certain things that would be helpful to your case as i said before i think it would be natural to assume if you're if you were in a car with five people and someone end up dead and there are murder charges developed that the police would have talked to all of the people in the car so i think mr maritz had some sense that the other witnesses had been interviewed what he didn't know is what those interviews have turn especially the interviews of some of the other witnesses who and i'm thinking specifically of john shane and a lucas haynes those people had information that was in teaching about the two women  getting back to the courts issue about actual innocence and how that how the witness statements helped mr maritz or helped to show an actual innocence claim i think what those what those witnesses show or with more investigation could show is that they themselves were involved in the kidnapping rather than mr maritz and their statements certainly suggest that there was much more to the puzzle then what what was presented why and for rather than couldn't they all be involved well i think so but i mean i think that without investigating that that's what you're left with you don't know well but you don't know isn't enough to establish actual in some sort of you through the gateway well you're that combined with the fingerprint evidence that suggested mr america never touched the truck that the only person that did touch the trunk was joseph jordan if mr ramirez was involved in putting mr braised in the trunk certainly his fingerprints would have been on the truck and they weren't even though another co defendants were the truck for it didn't have it didn't ever get to consider that evidence mr ramirez was not aware that evidence existed until the federal defenders were  pointed on the case so that by itself is significant evidence that mr romero wasn't involved in the kidnapping portion of these events and since that's what the felony murder rests on that's why that's significant even if we if we take out the other witness statements but with the other witnesses statements i think what we're left with is there are certain i think there is some doubt cast on what exactly took place of course that  never even investigated so we're left in a vacuum trying to second guess what would what these people would say i mean because i don't know what they would say now and that's that's where mr earle cost mr maritz the chance to investigate th on on his convictions