denial of leave to file pro se successive post conviction petition and it is petition to raise the claim of actual innocence and a claim that his right to due process was violated under great versus merely for purposes of prejudice was demonstrated when the suppressed evidence of a tiriel which means it could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light to undermine confidence in the perfect and i to be clear that is not a suspicion c of the evidence has it's basically because hands and feet with electrical cord took his car arraying and a check by threatening the use of force these charges were the reason buchanan was in jail at the same time screen green's trial can testify that he was in the that although he didn't unfortunately he didn't have the evidence to support that argument ok because during direct when the state ask you can it have i or anyone in the state's attorney's office ever made any deals or bargains or promises  in order to have you testify you can't said no and the state persisted any deals by anyone terry no i'm cross examination defense counsel to try to bring out some evidence that would reveal that perhaps mr buchanan did have hopes of some lenient treatment and he asks you hope that by testifying in this case that you will get a very favorable ruling lucian of your case from the prosecution isn't that correct and he said now i redirect the state came back and said you say you don't have any expectation of hope or leniency from the state correct and he said that's correct best guess that's correct and so then during their closing argument the state basically argued that buchanan's testimony was very important because he says he said no deals are comus is that all were given to him and that if you can it isn't getting anything what reason does he have to say anything now so clearly his denials were huge t agreement and charge that the state had knowingly allowed can and to perjure himself but the state denied that there was any agreement and said that the victim was no longer victim who had been tied up with electrical cord and held up at gunpoint in his car had been taken  titian mr green primarily challenge his for aggravated criminal sexual assault conviction and including that the evidence was insufficient for their conviction counsel was appointed to represent him and on appeal and that the second post conviction petition mr green in his prostate petition alleged the state had allowed mr buchanan to testify falsely at the trial and here counsel is appointed and counsel retain the services of a private investigator plotter and in amended petition counsel allege that green was just night due process and fair and a fair trial when the prosecution improperly misled the jury concerning its dealings with canon but again no  affidavit or no any other type of evidence was attached to support their petition and in fact that is what the state based their motion to dismiss the petition i am in the court of group the search for dismissed it and an appeal state were looking for some support from mr buchanan to support the sale occasion that he had actually had expectations of leniency or he testified and in fact the memo supports that because in the memo mr buchanan said that before he testified this is for the first time he says he recalls having it discussion with prosecutors getting a break in my case for testifying against battlecry and after th use what what was he promised or what was he suggested by the prosecutor in exchange for system or he had according to the defense attorneys on memo  think in light of all the other evidence to try if you view the memo in the context of what happened during the trial with you can use case being continued to coincide with green's case for well over  to he he is allowed to rely on the state's representation by mr green thought that this shouldn't be attached we'll never know but this supposed to say i'm sorry excuse me  particularly relish the opportunity to deny committing acts and the medical experts for the state in the defense disagreed on whether the physical evidence proved that the injury to the victim was a result of a sexual assault carried cannons testimony even with this other evidence of him being you know basically a jailhouse informant it's filled with the only evidence that connected mr green the simply cut back to him as being the person because they have injury and so certainly the state thought that his testimony was innocence with which is an exception to causing prejudice so yes i mean that is the standard now for any actual innocence claim and ordered this instead of just right and when you look at the right decision though which deals with cause and prejudice and what they did is actually defined in edwards as being well more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence and without meeting that standard then as a matter of law the defendant does not have a colorful well it's damaging in the sense that the witness in minutes who did this we can admit to the defense investigator that he did not have an expectation of leniency when he testified which is the exact opposite of the point discussions or not they did it he uses the words discussion with but it doesn't seem like there is any reference to but the state's attorneys prosecutors had to say about his attempt leniency it's not a situation like the defense language and the defense brief says that the state was negotiating with the defendant with the state just talking to the defendant about offering him leniency for his testimony it's a situation where to disclose something like this unless it becomes material purposes of brady and there is always the risk then that if prosecutors do not disclose everything that could conceivably the constitutional duty to dispose kicks in and then the trial would violate a process that is a risk that non disclosure prevents that doesn't mean that any time something that would be useful to the defense is not disclosed then automatically becomes required to have been disclosed this a matter of constitutional law the point is there is a risk and if prosecutors choose to to to take those risks then they might eventually be faced in a case  most what they have here is there is a statement by a witness that he had sought leniency not that he had an actual expectation either when he initially informed the defendant with police or when he gave his plenary discussions and understanding that they are going to talk later and then the very next day after the witness testifies gets clear that this is not that case this is different because it was it the next day it was of mine and and that's not even  policy that's not tenable with our principles of due process when the prosecutor sat even though this victim was held up at gunpoint his car was stolen from him he decided he's just not interested in pursuing this circumstances plus this memo are such that you can make a reasonable inference that there was an unspoken understanding between the state and distribute candy that he was going to receive lenient treatment for this for his testimony  and i do think the danger is giving the prosecution the message that hey as long as you kind of keep the light low we'll just continue your case don't let's not mention that we talked about getting a break let's not talk about the fact that your attorney thinks you're going to get probation early we're the only ones that can give it to you let's not talk about that let's just wait till after after his trial get the conviction then i will give you your plea and then we can all you know a plausible denial i mean and say no you can use your denial of any call or that there wasn't a formal contract or formal feel we can use that to bolster your because basically your house informant that shouldn't really have much credibility but this is how we can give you credibility