have the representatives of the state i believe somehow that me of distorting my focus in terms of addressing the findings of the district court and i should really have focused on the fact that this was an abuse of discretion which was proven at the at the trial court level and when you knew and didn't reveal don't you think that also if you talk about the burden you know he was scrupulous while it was brought out of the trial defense counsel didn't have all of the information now being presented as newly discovered evidence first post we're talking about three three basic things one did he get held over in long beach pursuant to an agreement related to some conspiracy with things to frame this innocent man this was simply an agreement to hold over the case that was pending against think which was much lesser matter pending the outcome of this trial in long beach and holding him in long beach that's one of the allegations as to what the defense counsel to be able to discover and what would have provided enough information to conclude that he had an agreement with the prosecution or the police to provide false testimony the second one is the reduction of this grand theft charge for robbery charge to a grand theft and that of course was the case that preceded the instant crime so that has an effect on whether or not he had deals in the past well we had enough cross examination as to thinks past and his willingness to inform on other people his understanding how to get into somebody else's celts so that he could talk to them and provide information to the police his history of getting benefits all of that was brought out by defense counsel at trial and now we're going to reverse this judgment the police stating we don't know if defense counsel had this transcript but he knew about this case we don't know what petitioners counsel have because at this point there are no records of what trial counsel specifically asked about that case during the trial here third well petitioner call i mean mr claim that maybe in a probation report he claims that maybe or i'm assuming that they dropped a warrant for me down in orange county on some misdemeanor case there's no real connection to this case it wasn't suggested that it was a part of the deal it was just  benefit that he thought he might have gotten because well hey i haven't brought to court on that charge maybe it was something that they did for me there's no specific reference to any evidence that shows that this was  apartment those are the three elements of which issues claim that there was a bargain when i asked defense investigator wyrick if he had any specific evidence of that there was a bargain well the first forestry just i don't think mr frank ever given anything for nothing you know i don't think that it was his intention to do anything for nothing but the question of whether or not he was out doing his best to help the police at every turn and whether or not he had an actual bargain in exchange for his testimony in this case are two different threads i think was the think that was what he did that's how he got out of all think about his history he drew allusions as to whether or not there were bargains this was something that was presented to the jury this is not new evidence but i think  and there's still no indication that he did get anything out of this perhaps after the trial there were some benefits that came down but at the time he testified he hadn't received any benefits but if i was a juror i would the incredible if we'd known about some past plea bargain we enter where it was originally charged to commit a robbery but then we know that his m o was to scam people by going in the store saying would you like to buy that t later he's is now passed away by the prison from aids and my chief investigative officer twenty years later he's retired and living in arizona and was not accessible to us through this evidence you're hearing so we've got a very trying to prove too much he wants to establish that the police coerced his identification he was the group that it's only council had come to me and talked to me before the trial even though i had two opportunities that trial have done that indeed history twenty years later so that's that he would have been disinclined to do that and of course the testimony itself is intrinsically and in every way inconsistent with his trial testimony and he attempted in every way to avoid it meaning that his trial testimony was untruthful to avoid any possibility of perjury or whatever it was obvious because he would either not remember things he becomes they going to have big us about his recollection he couldn't even remember testifying at a preliminary hearing this this whole recollection of this case boils down to the only things i can remember about those da was that they thought the police became so frustrated with me during that process that i you know i i pressured into the point that they grabbed the photograph out of the photo lineup testified at trial made a statement to line and the lawyers and the prosecutors are saying that he had met collets teen previously well there's a lot of confusion about that point you volunteered to me oh yeah by the way you know defense counsel asked me at trial if i remembered an incident where the defendant helped me to move a catch and at that point i couldn't remember but hey if only is that mean then that you recognized petitioner from the prior experience of him helping you with the count oh no i'm not saying that i never recognized him even though he even admits to this day that he did recognize him but it was unsure but now it's because i'm going to the corner i didn't recognize him and i said well what is the point of bringing up the fact that if  well i guess we're we're sort of stuck with the fact that campbell is now testifying and that's what they did and i guess if the police knew about that then yeah you have a problem with that all vote even  on the night of the murder that's pretty deep he'll information regarding an identification you're not sure about you're able to distinguish the difference between a photograph now and his appearance later and his appearance in a tr and yet i'm not sure about my identification and that is that identification was made based on this police misconduct even though when i first met the first police officer the night of the crime i said i am pretty sure i can fit the general description of the man she had seen on the night of the murder and that also matched petitioner's identification taken out of the garage with a shotgun or some instrument and fired into the air fine i tried going through personnel records they have long beach police department has no history of where he went after he left california only thing i got was from detective collette who was his partner was that he is retired and living in arizona we were able to locate him if i remember right i remember searching for him but i i can't remember what what the ultimate result of that was but i wasn't able to get into the mix i'm sorry it's a serious problem because we have no records we have no defense counsel records we have no real evidence of any improprieties by the police other than campbell's testimony which is very credible and we have no no evidence of any that the victim had a lot of money on him that night and which i've pointed out in the objections we had the victim's mother take the sting and sometime after the murder a long time after that the statement that i think gave to the police and she testified that on the morning that he was killed he left the house with a substantial amount of money in his in a bag that he had attached to his dog pants she knew that he had enough money to purchase furniture she knew that's what he was going to do she became concerned because she saw a roll of money and she said you need to pin that to your pants or something you're going to lose it some time after the murder enough evidence to establish robber not a case where there is a rarefied question of constitutional law factual guilt is well established but an interesting and important constitutional law question remains case is very different because the constitutional violations that occurred and were proven in my view go to the heart of the state court trial and the fact finding process and it is very possible i would say probable that a person has spent almost twenty five years in prison for a murder he did not commit and i say that for these reasons it is not my it's the type of argument that is commonly made post evidence read to the fact finder and it was me and it was rejected and what the court who heard the evidence and saw the witnesses eyewitnesses whose identification of mr goldstein was contradicted by at least four other eyewitnesses and i would say even more and who came to court and explained how and why he made an identification that he didn't believe was fair or accurate and to that then that identification was but stressed by design by upbringing and a jailhouse informant who is legendary in the ninth circuit i mean we have that only case where a person with sense execution when there were real questions raised about edward thinks veracity and i would ask the court to take that into account in court have essentially raised the same question in past cases i think the answer is no and i guess i'll address the three different claims that we prevailed on and if the court has any questions i'd be happy to try to answer them but the first point is a blatant lie and i respectfully disagree with the characterization that nothing was proven regarding a quid pro and he's passed away and i couldn't call him he's passed away but i did present i believe that the petitioner presented a compelling presentation of circumstantial evidence of a quid pro quo relationship the fact finder friends around that the chief of police of the long beach police department wrote a letter to the district attorney and asking that his cooperation be taken into account and lo and behold after that letter issues someone who's facing six to three years in state prison for his grand theft which began as an armed robbery it's fifty eight days in the county jail and i think it's reasonable for the fact finder to find that that is an example of a sub rosa deal between the long beach police and the da to reward mr frank for it's been remarked about recantation testimony i would respectfully disagree that mr campbell's testimony is reaching out to testimony i think what mr campbell did was reveal that from the beginning he had problems with the identification but tried to deliver in an effort to curry favor with the police and that the police definitely knew that he had problems with identification from beginning to end and that they did not disclose fryman right after trial mr campbell remarked that even going into trial he doesn't know who the person he's supposed to identify is and that person is selected for him by the police officers and then immedia position is that he's helped him move him so from the beginning i was that he and certainly immediately after the trial mr campbell is stating things that are consistent with what he is stating now which is that from all times he had problems with identification and was pushed or took it upon himself to exaggerate in order to please the police but there is no  testimony because he when i say he mr campbell didn't give us everything we wanted but he spoke how he viewed the facts and what he said is that he went too far he went too far he made  judge panel of this court for permission to file a successor petition and they granted that had testified in ten other cases and the magistrate found not to be true but i'm not aware of anything this far in the system before the court other than the cases that have already been cited in my grief which is the prior panels on published opinion in this case and thompson versus called the wrong the next thing i'd like to say is that it goes further than brady and this is with that obligation very seriously and it was only because of notations in the file and strong circumstantial evidence that the district attorney's office had to have known about the investigating officers assure me it will get better and there are other notations that are referred to in the magistrate's report where are they refer to edward think the deputy district attorneys refer to it as this testimony is to stand up and correct that that is a second independent in and really larry constitutional violation that is representative of the type of constitutional violations that lead to wrongful convictions and the respectfully ask the court to apply the appropriate standard to reviewing the fur to the judges who actually sat through all of the testimony and saw the witnesses and heard them testify and heard the arguments also for example you know there are many references today about why mr fink had to be telling the truth because he knew things that nobody else knew and he knew that this movie murder was motivated by the desire to that was litigated and lost in the first petition we did not attack mr parade its representation for his failure to try to investigate and impeach edwards think i think he did and admirable job with the best that he had did i tender an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for him based on another reason yes and it's a very humbling experience to do it when you're a defense lawyer but it has to be done and it related to something totally different than what's been argued today even argued that mr paraded had a duty in this particular case to try to they identify the shooter as african american or latino and they provide very different descriptions of the person that this was one eye witnesses talking about against that background the stric approached he may very well have revealed the information about his misgivings and you know it's hard sometimes you have to ask why but he answered why he said mr campbell said even if it was hard to understand he would have felt more comfortable saying them in a setting where the police officers and the victim's family were not there because he didn't want to let them down and although i have seen that hearts are not really appropriately argued in the appellate court i think there's a real indication that we want to believe him because when petitioners lawyer found him in the rest home and talk to him that's exactly what happened i mean he told us about his misgivings and he didn't just tell us he you know signed a declaration came to court was submitted to a expensive process and emanation and held up through the whole process because think there is some basis for the court to say that you know there is credence to that so those are the frequencies and i guess i see that my time is nearing its end and i would just like to make really mr goldstein is going to twenty five years of incarceration based on evidence that is so slim i've never seen a case this good on my side of the law before and i would ask this panel to consider lifting the stay that's been impos recantation testimony is not completely changing it he's just saying now that he had that but the fact is he also claimed that he was not coerced or had made any promises by the police officers at the time of the identification and now he's conspiracy misconduct and everything else and he never revealed that at the at the time of trial or any time up until and investigator comes to me twenty years later that's very suspicious that all the sudden you come up with this declaration with several grounds attack on on the on the judgment and different realms and different theories and he never had any of this concern until until an investigator comes out to talk to him but basically what he rejected i think that's clear error he rejected our theory of buyer's remorse because none of the other cases ever used that theory and he rejected the motive for the money the money as a motive because he no evidence to the record to support the conclusion that he had money on and the trial clearly pointed out that he was carrying a substantial amount of money that is clear and in that case i would also say that that is not our