wearing all black clothing firing dozens of shots killing one person and injuring three others was that just five minutes away joe torre's house was five minutes away from where traffic eleven forty three and see his headlights coming towards us we don't know if it was ten miles further down that road which is possible while the officer testified that it was that it was five minutes away unimaginable set of circumstances would have to occur then this would have had to walk up to george shoulders house at eleven thirty with one other man and begin firing i don't never specifically how many rounds it was but it was forty fifty six thirteen minutes later that the factors that would have had to happen is shooting is completed he rose to his jeep takes off this black clothing he's allegedly wearing takes off the mask that some of the witnesses to the to the crime report see disposes of that somewhere in order for the police to not fight it in the record it doesn't demonstrate that those items were ever found then he has to jump in his jeep drive away from jal shorter's residence thought that specific argument regarding the timing i'm not sure was specifically made the jury had all that information in front of it that is correct then we are asking this court to review this case there's also the smith case i cited in the group that has very similar facts to the instant case where the court reversed the defendant's conviction and essentially what the argument is here in order to rebut the videotaped evidence showing that the defendant was in a clash or thirteen those later calm cool and collected the state essentially call three witnesses none of whom successfully refer the videotape evidence because none of them are credible that they're absolutely in fact not credible by the time of trial to mariel cunningham it was one of the state's witnesses i sincerely don't believe that america was even there in the house and talk to mariel testified that he was hiding out joel shorter's residence because he was  for the murder of marvin jefferson he was hiding from the police and from people that he thought wish to do him harm he said he was in the living room looking out the window and saw should it happen he says fourteen months later after the shooting after he'd already been charged with murder and there are certain things that the mirror leaves out to mariel merely says that he was standing at a picture window looking out and saw the shooting take place he doesn't mention thick black river or navy drapes that are covering that window he didn't know about the straits because he wasn't there he says that well nobody saw me in the house because i crawled out of the back exit while he also testified that he was in the house a minute after the shooting stopped when the shooting began the people from the porch and running into joel shortstops they room through the living room where the miracle said that he was in the other parts of the house had he been there they would have seen finally the mirror gets another very important evidence the state relies upon his johnny taylor's testimony john taylor was one of the people who was shot during the shooting and almost immediately following the shooting while he was receiving medical treatment plea subscription of the person shop his temperature in was tall then dark complected male with no facial hair he said i was unable to see the facial characteristics of this person because it was so dark drug testified i'm telling you i'm telling you today that out of anger and spite because they said they had him i was angry and i soon that was him but i'm not a hundred percent sure that that's the man because i couldn't see his face and if there's any wrong done i'm ready to pay for what i did and i didn't see the man it's just like that he made a similar comment earlier that in fact the person who he identified in the status was not the man that shooting  again the the star who thing to me about the identification is john taylor says the man you shooting at me was clean shaven then he identifies this name sister and that picture was the picture taken when he was arrested for not shooting of a friend of his didn't talk police until twenty two days he had been there he was in some sort of trouble the scene inside so he was talking to the police i don't know if he was under arrest for another chance or not but he somehow implicated in the status in th his friend and overheard a conversation amongst the man he also knew there were two guns in the car he knew that there were two guns in the car not because it's intended status with those guns he'd seen those guns in the possession of roderick and of randy prior to the shooting and i say that because actually don't us presented the testimony to vickie reacher he testified that at the time that dennis was allegedly in this van in the friend's house according to paul he was actually on his way from a come to the cape so you could've been cold and then testifies that the day after the shooting he's at roberts for over and house while the three men are watching news broadcasts regarding the shooting again handed the initial same that he gave to please he wrote a statement saying that his initial allegations yes that the status were wrong and that he was had just told the police that because he was in trouble and he'd never been in a situation like that he was trying to help himself out then he gets to trial he says oh i take all that back i was under pressure to write the statement from randy bowman well the interesting thing about that statement is coleman implicated rand has absolutely no credibility here especially and i keep coming back to this video this videotape that shows a calm cool and collected dennis davis wearing it while shirt with no evidence of a shooting in his  this court says you know what we find that the witnesses were credible there's an additional problem the state's case and that's issue two in the brief or very ineffective assistance of counsel argument because yes the jury did hear this evidence in the case testified that he'd never seen dennis before again i question the credibility of back in the familial you know relationship with the family and in their familiarity with each other but yes he did make an identification of broderick as well jury walks in they start hearing the evidence of how dennis was involved in this offense the state and that is tainted by this evidence that this gentleman who was in his thirty's at the time of the shooting history and that starts moving them closer to the area where they can start realizing hey this is someone who may very well have been volved in the shooting someone who may very well have been involved in another criminal enterprise because he's a criminal he's been in jail before i started to  a number of cases in the brief were very nervous issue including a couple from this very court in people versus our own this court said that a witness testimony about other crimes is generally reversible error and i would argue that it is in this case the fans come to should objected so i though one i think that the prejudice with drawing more attention to it is far outweighed by the jury in learning about it if we work under the assumption that if a jury is given a corrective instruction that that somehow fixes the problem i highly doubt that it does that is i argue another part of the spree that could minimize potentially some of the prejudice but more importantly are the things that the fence council could have done the fence coun attention to it the protos from that happening is for the last they'll allow the jury to wonder off mentally into what these other offenses could have been that that this was engaged in maybe he's done this before maybe he battered people he was just good that they were going to take care of something that they were going to take care of business and again no objection from defense counsel those statements were attributed that to us were hearsay i'd probably think of half a i cannot think of a single row that trial strategy reason for defense counsel to be ok with the jury knowing that his client has a criminal history or to know that his client has been in and out of jail for fifteen years that is evidence that  initial problem delve into that video and will show the jury how back then he goes completely inconsistent with the state's theory in this case so for those reasons i would ask that these convictions be reversed our right  couple people who looked similar then he explained later in his handwritten statement on being shown a photo break and i got it by defending again the next day that he thought that the fact that as well i went through my initial three point by point addressing certain things that depended are you then how they were nice not necessarily supported by the record i want to address some of those things that council now that didn't testify stewart and wheeler never went into shoulder cells or that he knew the locations of various people came to the house instead he testified the biologist in the living room room heard females arrive but did not see or have contact with them or recognize at night when the shooting happened that eleven thirty or it was when the dispatch came or the police arrived officer testified as to both things just at that time but you know it was dark out he's in hiding there are dark  shooter because he's looking out the picture window he testified i'm looking out this picture window that overlooks the front yard and i saw the two shooters either side of the house so he saw them even before they began shooting he had an even better opportunity to see what was going on because he said looking  so also has to opportunity you clearly taylor gave a description shortly after defense to four different talking about the description of the shooter shot course you know there wasn't testimony about lighting or about whether or not them who moves out but there was no testimony from which the jury would find that there wasn't enough opportunity to see the shooting happened to take place the house were running him was i mean how the guns present during that discussion before the shooting were a nine millimeter forty caliber which were the same size guns forensic evidence showed were used in the shooting it was in the vicinity after the shooting and of course the timing it looks like it was more like fifteen minutes where there's thirty minutes or fifteen minutes after the shooting is it was as your art mentioned it's only five minutes they could reasonably infer that the same guns that were present when they planned the offense were used to commit the shooting at the very house where cunningham who they thought had murdered marvan was wanted was hiding out did talk to the police and and then later on when he was he was in hiding from defendant and the others he's been pressured to be can't as he described his testimony and there's no basis rejecting the jury's parent acceptance of that testimony just about that tale and he also portrayal had told the police in december that in my  on clothing that the shooters were wearing not here necked not having any evidence of the shooting in his car is overwhelming evidence that he more than likely wasn't all in the state wearing black clothing he has no idea that this officer is going to pull him over he doesn't know he can't have a black sweatshirt or black clothing in his car he doesn't know the offscreen pull him over and potentially find that oregon he has none of that knowledge but yet when the officer pulls him over the only is he in the splasher not only is he cancun collected there is no evidence whatsoever in this jeep that he's committed this offense  as to the specific credibility issues with the witnesses the state says well you know the meriel i think just for you asked or just connect up the beat curtains over the window it's interesting to meryl doesn't mention the curtains in his testimony the mirror talks about how he looked out the front window how he had a full view of everything that was occurring in the yard outside the flashes from the gun he gives fairly detailed testimony about what he g evidence is counsel going to say at that hearing that justifies the ineffectiveness that he demonstrated during the trial well possible rational reason can he come up with to say and he was in and out of jail for possession of a small amount of marijuana may be present now here for public intoxication how do you go beyond that if that is what counsel said the problem with that is we don't know what the jury was thinking the are going to be witnesses and if you know they're going to be witnesses even if you're going to go to a bar if you change i guess i am not following there's no use that was present here where thirteen minutes after the shooting he's found driving back in the general direction oh shoot the same doesn't in the argument didn't mention the alibi testimony that was given by the key preacher