an we're not reinaldo but somebody named shorty and beyond that mr molina states that he passed this information along to the lead detective investigating the case as well as another police officer going so far as to actually reenact the events the cry for them number of fact you know in people the archie is the most recent eyewitness testimony came up in a third successive petition and yet the supreme court found that that was enough for it to even grant the defendant a trial most importantly if you want to see the distinction under routine is the defendant is not required to prove is that this is a correct that is correct your honor he's obligated to make a claim that's the merits for the proceedings it's the same permissive standards that we use for evaluating other pro se claims court was clear on the precise standards that we use to evaluate a claim of actual innocence the state however it has said that we evaluate these claims like any other claims fraud under the act and that they bypassed cause and prejudice ice just like night has recently done the third district people being williams in the division of this district last year the proper way to view it is with a very lenient i and the question is is there enough here worth sending it back to find out what would further your honor there is enough detail facts as to whether is new in the record in particular up with the affidavit indicates that the witness moved out of state that alone was enough in the people the in the summer national innocence case of washington there the witness had moved to mississippi and could be found here we know that money has moved out of state we know that from the massachusetts notaries additionally your honor we do expect at at subsequent proceedings to be able to show facts that are not within the four corners the four corners here are nuff but the family has relayed to me for example that they that they in fact learned of mr miller his name they hired a private investigator trying to track him down based on the address they got out of that mr munoz is nice drove out to massachusetts which is how we have a two thousand and six affidavit in the record with the massachusetts notary but because of course i would never just be read in the petition to make this life score this court's life much easier but at this extremely early stage where you know the question is really is there a just of an argument claim is there something worth looking at i would suggest we send it through further honors the prey claim does operate independently here it's clear that you know the statement express representation that's on the record before trial that it disclosed every bit of it suppository information it's clear that mr molina's count which we have to take this true at th witness the witness that says that i was at the scene of the shooting the defendant did not do it the person that did do it is still out there and i read this to two officers i walk one of the the detectives through the of the crime and i've and i wrote out a statement now we've never seen that statement given that we have to take that affidavit is true there's enough to go back and allow him to plead a brady plan yes we have to establish caus showing that it wasn't disclosed we've shown that prejudice is shown by the by showing that that that the evidence will be material clearly the testimony even exculpatory witness is material evidence are asking for the day is a chance to let mr munoz be heard we're not asking for him to be released we're not asking for this court to solely order a new trial we know what happened the corporal out judge ford simply missed the attached affidavit and never fully considered this plan in fact this court is the first one to ever be able to look at mr molinos affidavit given that i would i would ask this court to reverse the two to reverse judge ford's denial of cause and prejudice were reversed the fine yes your honor our you know a motion for cause is one option that we suggest that we follow raise here which in which this court did order reassigned to a new judge and you know there's no reason to go through the step of cause especially here the underlying interest in on behalf of the people of the state of illinois the decision by the post conviction court in this case to deny defendant leave to file his successor petition was correct and should be affirmed by this court for two key reasons first defendant failed to set forth a valid freestanding claim of actual innocence and second defendant failed to set forth a brady violation in his original pleading which was filed with the court and he should not be allowed to add one here on a conviction petition while it is set out in his actual brief which is filed here with this court it's not in his initial i'm pleading which was filed and considered by the trial court he set forth five claims and that post conviction petition turning to the affidavit for example if you look at the substance of the affidavit there is nothing in that affidavit which indicates that defendant was not in possession of that information prior to his trial the affidavit is worded very carefully  not went to speak to the police and he was not called as a witness that defendant's trial there is no evidence to support the idea that that home you know molina did not contact defendant that he was not interviewed by defense counsel and rejected as a witness or that defendant was not contacted by molina that that affidavit also states that her mino molina was personally acquainted with the defendant who he who he even referred to by a nickname scoobie so it seems illogical to think that mr molina who went to the great effort to go to to police stations to talk to law enforcement officers would not take the step to go and speak to defendant himself or defendant's counsel who that that fact there's no affidavit from defendant saying that he didn't receive this information previously that there's that he didn't receive a report with this information the only thing that we have is the defendant's  statement in his post conviction petition but the law is clear that even with a pro se petitioner that's not sufficient that he needs to include sufficient affidavit evidence or point to something in the record which was support his claim and he's failed to do that and prerequisite institutions that are at the even at the first stage that defendant has to make a sufficient showing and defendant simply hasn't met that and while it is possible that we could garner more information if we had an evidentiary hearing  e it's possible that we could garner more information if the state had an opportunity to respond the point is that these rules and these requirements are put in place for a reason and once we start lessening these standards are not holding defend were saying i'm not saying one way or the other whether the state tendered information about myleene or not i'm saying that defendant hasn't provided enough information for us to know defendant hasn't shown that we did not tender the i would also point out to this court defendant was comparing this case to ortiz and in his brief he also compares the sue a number of other cases where a new witness has come forward but again what i would highlight for this court is the difference stage consideration a defendant must make a showing that the evidence he's presenting is newly discovered and that it has the potential to change the outcome of the trial and i would say again this defendant has simply has not made that showing that this evidence is newly discovered he's there is nothing included in his pleading which would support the fact that he did not previously have this information and in terms to get back to what i was saying before the difference between this case and the other cases is that in all of those cases there is something contained in the affidavit which would show us that defendant was not able to be in contact with this witness or was not aware of this witness u there's nothing in this case which would show us that the simple fact that there's an affidavit which is notarized by a notary from massachusetts isn't support for the fact that this this witness mr molina was not available to the defendant the other information which counsel provided to here during oral argument is not contained anywhere in the record in the pleading or in the affidavit that's filed with this court and for that reason alone should not be considered by this court honor even though a defendant only show a limited amount of detail need not even every element of the claim that we have in the the four corners this petition is enough that just because the united states supreme court has held court after counsel even though he's about to be suspended from the practice of law you know the braves managed to somehow scavenge for an undisclosed brady material molinos account and then proceed to ignore it and that because of that he should be denied the ability to raise