range of pounds he was facing mr reiman as i said was a jailhouse informant he was in custody of the time facing his own charges when he apparently testified that he had a conversation with mr steele about you which used to be steel confessed to counsel tried to bring up to the jurors that mr ryan and received a seven year sentence on a burglary charge when he attempted to illustrate to the jury what that meant in a grander scheme of things what did seven years on a burglary charge mean in under illinois law the trial  this is seven years and yes he doesn't have to agree with the state but look at what's motivating he's facing between six and thirty years in prison and now he comes forward with this illustration so i would argue goes beyond just an agreement and that's what counts it was trying t the statements of the police were he told them about the funds confession was it recorded with a recorded i don't remember seeing the record it was recorded he made a number of statements i believe some of them were documented with notes with different likes of the state's attorney if i remember correctly i don't have the specifics of that first conversation in my mind i don't remember that being in the record and when you say no but he doesn't say yeah you know what finally i think he doesn't break down and say yes i did if he stays firm to that but yet this other person this jailhouse informant comes in this is not you know well the only one custody he absolutely did what he would do to the police and he he said i shot them all i shot them both seriously and that's why arguably at this stage of the prejudice is still there because the court because if you look at all of the evidence in total not of the evidence that comes in which makes the juror five the fact finder make a determination as to whether or not there's guilt or innocence how in this particular case you have a lot of circumstantial evidence separate and apart from this end i think this is one piece of evidence which is the confession it's that bad piece of evidence that ties everything else together and really interested into that conviction because again nobody says mr to steal confessed only speculate too far we just want to say is it arguable that there is that reasonable probability and i would say that there is that the state fully comply with discoveries is i i have no indication that they didn't are they that they that they  need be sufficient that assumes and here i do agree that the proposition that assumes that the relevant factor is that the jury understands all the relevant factors one of the things that i think is important to keep in mind is that jurors when they not allowed to do and here it was clear to the jury this this witness was the multiple convicted felon who was a jailhouse call what sully who had  goes beyond just understanding the range of it's what the range means it means in his brain what am i getting out of this what why do you what do i stand to gain by coming forward with this information and that's the factor that i think is important  burglary at the time that he was in jail and that defendant and during that time and at the time that he heard the confession and at the time which was two thousand and eleven i believe by the time he went to the state to tell them that he had so that this affected him when he was you know what determining this and and thinking about it and you know the more here is the more likely he is to be trying to conjure up something it was that it is that it was not you know that the court and the state and the defense counsel i would submit all i understood it to be we want to get in staten even though he was facing fifteen because it shows that there actually was a deal in measuring prejudice we the way the street argu credibility was totally undermined and i think in a way that the state didn't foresee which is that first of all the defense brought out some things which it certainly had a right to do which is that ryan had been in jail with a person my the name of i believe it was richard clark and that device adjusted that was it wasn't that michael clarke's the victim's mother victim's brother and so he could have learned the details from him now that was never tied up in any way that i could see on this record but certainly that was meant that he may have seizures but that seizures caused him to have memory loss he admitted that he lied about that just a day or two before he's you know taking the stand here to testify for this stage they brought out the defense right out that he be admitted for that purpose and that it would have to look for is there some type of prejudice and in this case not only did he have them fronting the very thing that we're talking about the fact that he had pending charges so that takes away from any argument now s well you're looking for whether the record rebuts it and now you know one of the actual issues that can be very simple you know does somebody say x happened and you can see that in fact it didn't happen but here we have a legal theory and it doesn't bring about the legal theory and i would suggest that  you can look at it now it is you know there's a lot of evidence but of course you know you never know this but this is this is sort of ironclad this is a case that you don't see very all set which is that we have the someone actually knew the person he said this person had been at the wedding of his mother and her new husband he said this person lived in janesville which the defendant did he use the wrong name he called him bliss which was a nickname but b talk to the defendant he identified him the child identified the defendant from the photo said that the photo bliss was not him said this is bliss and pointed to the defendant's photo said he saw them at the time of the shooting from the side not from the front he was very clear that it wasn't from the front but he saw him and he knew who it was now how do we know that that's a good identification because the defendant left his phone at the see the defendant the defense if i may finish that we have the defendant showing up at that time line where this person these two people were killed we know that because we have the nine one one call immediately after where the child runs next charles gone probably next door to make the report that his parents had been shot and so he has no idea how he's blindsided by how this child getting from i don't know i don't know we had my phone with me i didn't come back until suddenly oh that's right i the this case was an ironclad which raises the question if the other evidence in this case was ironclad then why did the state bother with david right in the first place because they did i would argue that the highways that they wanted this evidence before the jury that this was important evidence again because it's a confession confessions we know hold particular weight and that's why there's prejudice in this case if the rest of the evidence was ironclad there was no prints whatsoever why would the state take the opportunity to put a gentleman and a general who not any of this stuff survives a substantial showing is a question for a different day right now we're just simply saying is there the gist of a constitutional violation and i would argue there are there's a couple of things involved you totally forgot this about appellate counsels like strateg