one is that there's an overarching fact in this case and that is that mr prank lynn was convicted solely on the basis solely of one witness there was no other evidence this is not one of those exaggerated we're making something there was only ms day's testimony and nothing else connected into this case the other is that mr franklin's primary objective in his he'd be a petition in this appeal is to surely the test is that the brady claim could have been discovered but isn't it true that mr franklin had actual notice of the leniency offered to shante day during the trial he did not what happened could not ask about then what happens is and a week or two after she testifies now st of all she had been able to leave while she had prior a took felony a petty a felony petty you have one you have the prosecutor who knew that there was candy he knew that mr franklin's attorney had breached the issue you've been denied an opportunity to three question to ask her about whether she got a deal and then he puts his hidden seeing him and then he thinks he could just claim a lack of knowledge really as a constitutional obligation to provide the defense with the information that she received the sentencing benefit prior to the kind he stood up in court and said he wasn't aware of anything and he didn't turn it over so if you would except you prosecutor statements made in court then mr franklin at that point had to say ok i guess i was wrong i guess there was no benefit given i can rest on the fact that she didn't receive the onus wasn't on him to go find somebody to go  there and i guess there's an implication that they're going to file but is not the best you have they didn't ever agree to do it they never did nothing that we have in the record shows a theat we have two letters that were written by the law students who work on these cases in the innocence project and find that they were going to raise it but then ok so if they're not going to do it they have an obligation to tell mr franklin that he has a claim that prison cell know when he receives a document that says attorney for demetrius franklin that those attorneys aren't really representing i mean there's this it seems like kind of a sham a kind of a sham like mr franklin who are otherwise perceive her in this weird kind of limbo where think that where they assume that they're represented and they don't find out and they don't find out that they have a deadline he really wanted to get this case or the court within seventy five days of being abandoned he had found counsel and they got their petitions filed i mean you could work more diligently than that and  about fairness and all he's asking for is to have his breeding claim which he had reason to believe the innocence project was going to pursue heard by the federal court had they told him six months earlier witness to that tyson to this case if this was a case as we often hear of overwhelming evidence we might be in a different situation than mr franklin has sir has been serving has been in prison for the last twenty three years based on the testimony of a witness who she met and seen favors in her own criminal case for testifying against him a witness who otherwise was presented to the jury as a neutral non interested party one inch yes well yes so one of the things at the innocence project was send some lawsuits out that interview her and during that interview she said she didn't really remember mr franklin being there she didn't remember  about my question to your opposing counsel about what happened on may st to what extent did mr franklin have knowledge of the leniency was already now or was there and he hears that the outcome but the fact of the reduction to a misdemeanor was known at that time and disclosed is that correct or not that is that was understood amongst all parties before the impossible and in the district that you seem to suggest he had to be presented which i think is inconsistent with few but also if the district court use that standard impossibilities standard unpack they're going to start backwards from where he started again much like the equitable tolling the actual innocence gateway exists to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to just let this case and when there was only one witness one witness against mr franklin without having his case in his i q starting misty her would be a miscarriage of justice with mr franklin has acknowledged he hasn't proven t excerpts of record into the minute order regarding the state sentencing and let me let me preface that there were two possible acts of leniency the one that the a court referred to earlier about the reduction of misdemeanor i issue now the issue now is the sentencing breaks that she got which the which the homicide captain specifically high to her testimony in this case if you look at the minute order which is all that anyone would  seen had they gone with the case file also it says is that the court received a letter from the captain from the homicide captain that the d a had no objection and the court struck the finding reinstated your probation doesn't even tie it to this case it's not clear from the record how the innocence project found out that the letter existed or that it was seal she only found out the information that was actually continue in the letter when a court  here that they didn't know that she had was convicted in a penny there until after the fight we know from the record that's not true there was discussion before she testified about your current case the prosecutor prosecutor's representation and now the attorney general expects to say well he could have gone despite what the prosecutor said despite the fact that you know your to ask your questions well you could have gone to the courthouse yourself and seeing this little middle order and everything would have been one field that's just not reality at the heart of this case is the possibility that mr franklin is innocent or that he was or that he