the systems of trial counsel were counsel failed to call two witnesses a trial one of whom based on her pretrial statements to police apparently would have given the scope authority testimony the other for whom based on a questions about the other issues i'd be happy to address those as well now in making this argument the definitive course acknowledges the collins standard the rational trier of fact standard and i think one of the principal rationales of that standard is that the troyer of fact is present in the courtroom as a chance to hear in see the way this is testify and therefore at least hypothetically is in a better position than the reviewing court to assess the credibility of the witnesses because the reviewing court is limited to the cold right one of the unique aspects of this case however is that in the post trial motions stage the trial judge although this was a jury trial the trial judge commented on the evidence presented at trial and offered his opinion that most of the prosecution witnesses principly three individuals he characterized as snitches or the witnesses testified that the statements by the judge are not the linchpin of the defendant's reasonable doubt argument but he said miss that those patients in should be considered by this court and that they both through the defendant's argument that the record shows that these witnesses were not credible and therefore no rational trier of fact could have returned a guilty verdict in this case the defendant also acknowledges that it is not up to this corpse really weigh the evidence or to retry the defendant but according to one case law on the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal the court of course must closely examine that evidence i am the jury's verdict is not insulated from the power review as the state seems to suggest on appeal now the evidence presented in a trial in this case basically showed that on the night in question three individuals entered the home of robert blanks and proceeded to stab him to death as it so happens four members of the victim's family were present in the home that evening his wife and three children and three of those individuals his wife in two northern and say that he was one of them or was otherwise involved in this crime furthermore there was no physical evidence in the defendants of the offense but there was a lot of blood evidence of a lot of blood both inside the house and outside the house but according to the experts none of that came from the defendant all of it came from the victim of mr blanks there was no d n a evidence tying the defendant to the crime no fingerprint evidence tying the defendant to the crime there was no with evidence that any property in the house was later found in the defendant's possession in fact there was no evidence that any property was taken from the home on the night in question and none of the witnesses testified diffidently no one promoting statements to the police and there was no testimony from anyone admitting his or her involvement and also saying that the defendant was involved so course the question your honour's may ask is what other evidence presented in this case against mr north or life mentioned previously the judges referenced with reese so called snitches three individuals courtney smith christopher mcafee sean lewis all testified in the victim were friends that they were members of the same street gang and that the defendant was a member of a rival gang smith testified that a body year after the murder he had a run in with the defendant in which the defendant may dissipate into him apparently referencing the street gang that smith belonged to saying something along the lines of y'all ain't got the murder game up to par the smith testified that he e was that about ten years elapsed from the murder which occurred in one thousand nine hundred nine and the defendant's trial which occurred in two thousand and nine christopher mcafee testified that somewhere around two thousand and five an acquaintance of his and the defendants named robert johnson who is a leader charged as a codefendant in this case was arrested on an unrelated federal charge and mcafee claimed that in about that time he had a conversation with the defendant in which defendant stated to mcafee that he was concerned that shots and was the weak link and that federal authorities might bring pressure to bring to bear on johnson concerning the murder of robert weiss now well it initially this this allegiance statement doesn't really seem to ring true because i don't understand why federal authorities might have any interest in the murder of mr blix it was a state prosecution it was a state crime from the very beginning ten years prior to the infamous trial they had the foreseeable that it was a state crime and that if anyone would be charged it would be a state prosecution certainly falls far short of any emission on the defendant's apartment on the defendants part that he was involved in this crime shawn lewis gave the most probative  testimony i suppose of the three because he claimed it is really the only one who claimed that the defendant admitting to him that he was involved in this offense i e testified that defendant was with him for impeached testimony for example he admitted he told of the grinch jury only that the defendant gave him seventy scenarios and that event put two and two together it certainly is very different from his trials as mony therefore he could not have been with lewis during the entire period of time lewis claimed that he was in one for his tennessee in addition like both smith and mcafee lewis was a convicted felon like smith he was a game member like smith he was in federal prison at the time the defendant's trial and life smith he had entered into a proffer agreement whereby his sentence might be reduced he gave authorities information leading to criminal convictions in fact he testified in trial that he was hopeful not that he had a specific agreement but he was certainly hopeful that a sentence of might be reduced based on his testimony in this particular case in the primary allegations in the post from ocean was the trial counsel and then in effect involved with enough there was not a reasonable doubt already when actually raised in the post for motion in addition my research shows although frankly i was very surprised to find this for my research shows that where there is a motion for directed verdict that that in all the judge may disagree as to credibility he can't take that away from the jury and so i don't know that it  johnson was trying first and johnson was acquitted and the judge said the difference between the two was evidence descendants conduit in the hours following the murder and what he was talking about was testimony in that above three hours after the attack on blaine's was reported to police that the defendant showed up at an area hospital with a wound in his leg claimed that was accidental describe the manner in which  suspicious conduct but once again not trying to trying into the crime now if there had been evidence that one of these sailings had been injured or if there had been blood from a person other than the victim at the scene that that might have made this evidence very probative but there was no such evidence what so ever and so if you look at this is specious conduct at the hospital if you look at the testimony of each of these three witnesses that i detail whether individually or cumulatively they simply do not constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each piece of evidence is very weak and simply adding weak evidence weak evidence does not all the sudden transform the case into one that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt clearly conviction can't be sustained done as a collision or conjecture and i said been bets all the jury  counsel wants it myths that this defendant showed up at the hospital in nearly morning hours after this murder took place and talked about i have a wound i need to have treated and gave a false name well there were two yes he meant to go a cousin's house in the cousin and cousins girlfriend he asked them for help and they took him to the hospital  jury mr lewis shawn lewis testified that the defendant told him that he and two others had gone over to mr black's his home they were looking to rob him to rob the defendant i understand that three of these witnesses at least two of whom had made agreements with the federal government i believe if i'm not mistaken that their testimony were incarcerated for drug offenses that time in federal prisons and they'd made agreements to testify in this case can they enough themselves to be relied upon exclusively no but what is important is that the testimony they gave is consistent with witnesses who have no reason to the law mr lewis related himself that's consistent with the testimony of the doctors the nurse at the hospital where the defendant would be treated where he gave a false name and he lied about how the injury occur to some twenty witnesses in this trial it wasn't just those niches that if that was the case maybe this defendant wouldn't have been found guilty but the fact remains he was found guilty by a jury what he was saying was i understand your argument that these witnesses lack some credibility but what about the witnesses that don't lack any credibility if it weren't for what the defendant did after this crime was committed that circumstantial evidence is just as important as some other circumstantial evidence that goes to show his involvement in this murder is that the judge will just that is that what he  he said was in effect i have a problem you know there are snitches he testified here and their credibility is nil credible witnesses and if it weren't for their testimony along with the other testimony that was admitted trial perhaps this defendant would have been found not guilty also but that's not the case this is the defendant's trial his codefendant was tried in another trial and found not guilty and i think the evidence showed that robert johnson mo he was armed with a weapon and he's guilty under a theory of accountability perhaps he didn't kill robert bla sentencing issues concerned the trial judge was entitle to consider all of the defendant's prior convictions for purposes of imposing sentence the fact that those prior convictions may have created a situation where the defendant was i want to call or not for an extended term sentence is zero they were admissible as aggravating factors supported child judges imposition of the sixty year term the defendant was not given an extended term sentence so whether or not the mistaken belief that he oh i had from one under these circumstances however one defendant challenges this vision see the evidence on appeal the fact that the jury may have found impairment did find certain witnesses to be credible does not require the appellate court to make or to reach the same conclusion it's important for this court to look closely at each piece of evidence again the jury's verdict is not insulated from view this court need not say a witness is credible simply argument yet there were there were numerous witnesses but course many of the witnesses were police investigators hospital personnel who were whose credibility was was not at issue in this case the defendant williams and she speculated as well as the police prior to trial with another man and edward rodin may have been involved in any event the case didn't really rise or fall on many of the witnesses presented state had here and that's all the space is really arguing today oh i'm sorry are smith and in lewis whereby the sentence might be reduced if they gave information that would lead to criminal convictions and lewis testified he hoped that was the case smith his his friend who was killed here and he and the defendant were in a rival gang so that would seem to give him the supplement of motivation mcafee i didn't mention this before the mcafee testified that one point he and the defendant were very good friends but by the time of the trial reason to lie if that's what they chose to do with this case thank you thank you i also this fits as well clearly the defendant is the one who killed blanks a jury here was instructed on account ability so i don't know that the state was even confident in trial but the defendant struck any blows in any event i you know if this is been a civil suit the preponderance of the evidence