good morning may please the court i'm roger cox representing a pal of tiger grant i'd like to reserve two minutes for a bottle if i may ok in this case there was a murder in pittsburgh in january one nine hundred ninety seven from a bar called the where i sat bar we know the facts when you just give in to your your argument if you're the critical witness a trial for the commonwealth with a man shooting came by and let out the shooter obviously went around the corner and he came out first and on foot emptied a magazine and then went away and  from the where it's at par and then he sees type regret walking and coming down the street and yells at mr moore that he just had to shoot these people or worse that fact and that's it that's the whole of the government's case inside the grand leaving aside the many many problems with the veracity of mr moore the prosecutor was there's a discussion on the record in the court on that well i agree also you are the court wasn't informed of the jury never heard that he had his prior criminal record to serious felony offenses they also didn't hear that mr moore was on parole at the time of his testimony w nobody makes a motion to extend time for the trial or anything to do further preparation for have been granted as we know it's a serious case but it just doesn't seem to have occurred to this lawyer mr gardner to the necessity of you know finding out what the facts are from the defense's point of view for example there's one no police report i remember that mentions another eyewitness not called the trial not mention what police departments reports are noteworthy for never saying much it just says that she was interviewed would she say who knows we don't know nobody wants to see her i would have wanted to see her if i were trial counsel was that neat now was state law there's really not much can be done it can be done in federal court to waive a new hearing that's right ok yes one thing i would like to mention that nobody in this case sick a seems to have noticed is that there was never a discovery as enormous number of cases out there including smith v kane a recent supreme court case under brady where the court finds that you know there was this undisclosed stuff that's later discovered well where is this file this  the very same moment mr moore's testimony as he sees mr grant walking down lincoln street another street all together so who's telling the truth mr or mr goldberg nobody seems to have noticed the fact that you can't be in two that's right we don't know what that means max i understand that the same as the statement too short to mr moore but you know this is the religion with a very small slice of time here i mean so whoever did the shooting goes somewhere i go beyond that if you want to look at the cases coming out of use in europe out of some of the developing tribunal's in africa can you show me any case that says we're a witness has a subjective understandable but the extent to which the prosecutor hangs the case on more and not having a reason to lie that was why the prosecutor found in on it and again is totally understandable that's what a good lawyer would do but he says over and over again that he had no reason to come in here he had no reason to get up on that wooden the stand in the identify mr mansour shooter he could have gone about his business what vision does he have to lie was an obvious answer that the no one knows about you're i understand your concern here's my frustration with the case is were constrained by the record i don't think it's clear that my office didn't turn over the fact that mr moore was on parole  it seems we have to undermine confidence in the case if you've got a single identifying witness who didn't see astri's you've got four or five people who did see the face of the shooter they say it wasn't graham and that they knew and that one of description does not come to any i guess grant is what five four five five and i in slight of build the descriptions are all over the place and they're in the in the prosecution's closing argument my goodness that thing i find working in pittsburgh dealing with a lot of these usually gang related homicides it's amazing how many witnesses will say i saw the shooter and i don't know who it was but it was and i feel like that's what's going on with a everybody's identified the car but the faces in the car who are identified are clearly not there fingerprints in the car only two different people neither of them are gray and none of that mathematically excludes the possibility of ground zero can see that being in the car  history part of the record before the supreme court when a review grants p c r a question your honor it was it's interesting it was not made a part of the record for the post conviction court i mean it certainly is we encounter plenty of cases where witnesses know something about the case and even if it's the people that won't be truthful about what they see but that's true but now i understand a friend's counsel does not want to tick off a afraid to testify but that doesn't help me because the prosecute him then of the fact that moore was the only one who had no fear everybody else out there or their feelings their chances of misidentifying some were not in the person actually is pretty high supreme court and none of those decisions do in the state court seem to understand this case never pay any attention to the fact we have all these eyewitnesses who didn't identify tied to a grant that mr morris the only critical witness for the dedicated i gree ron i myself not being paid by the defendant so there are many fine people doing this but he had the bad luck the draw unfortunately nobody emphasized to these courts the importance of mr moore in if you read page two of the supreme court's opinion two thousand and two opinion as to mr grant it's very confusing as to why they don't find a brady violation for example well they're not looking for one because they don't understand the facts of the case