in order to be a valid claim of actual innocence it has to do more than merely cast doubt on a previous conviction the evidence has to be totally it has to be exonerated there has it has to give more than the something that's in the trial record that directly robots has his claim on one post conviction both the original post conviction and the the new post conviction of motion and hearing all the witnesses heard all the festival he's presented with yet another attempt to impeach the verdict by so called newly discovered evidence which has nothing to do directly with this case and is that newly discover is certainly not brady material it's within his his power to dismiss to say no we done enough you told your story i didn't believe it you tell you tell another story i didn't believe it and to call in other instances of misconduct on the party investigating officer when it's part of a pattern most of the instances that defended describes are actual physical violence against defendants in order to get of admissible so a large number of what he claims would not be admissible further a large several of the instances that he that he lists in his brief were unfounded you know there's not every allegation testimony of the officer and chose to disbelieve the also based on what he had at that time now we have different testimony not only test the test when we shows that the officer has been found by some course to be a liar recantations i mean that they don't agree if he was telling the truth we'd get one story and not two stories but you know we get we get two different versions on by bringing sales kennelly for to tell his story and to bring the other witnesses forward to tell the story didn't the judge did not believe the defendant's witnesses he believed the people's witnesses and and he kept the conviction there is nothing in this so called newly discovered evidence that goes to that demonstrates to any extent expropriation of the of the defendant there is nothing that's that heavy dents on both sides and he waited in favor the officer but now we have evidence that the officer is a liar isn't that we have evidence the off sheriff may have behavior properly on certain cases we don't have convincing evidence hands of the state you know this is we do not defendant a burden of keeping him apprised of what's going on in the playroom we took him to the risk case as a matter of public record it's not our job to let him know what are we supposed to do what's our obligation i mean are we supposed to take to two track defendants you know the cases defendant might be interested in this is not brady material he makes to play ok which are mutually exclusive actual innocence and brady all right this is there's more evidence that demonstrates defendant did not commit this crime ok merely impeaching merely impeaching the verdict is not evidence of actual innocence none of that goes to defendant's guilt or innocence it's not material to his conviction could be material to the people involved in those cases clearly but not to our case the mere fact that the that the diff texas was found to have acted improperly on another case doesn't mean it's a fact that he acted improperly on this basis is the question this is the question i think we have here we have a case where the fin and presents testimony i was at work i think the they were i'm sorry there was alibi testimony he was at home but the trial how fast time your fact listen to the testimony that jeff said well i'm going to believe the officer in this case but when he made that decision he did not have before him these cases where this also has been found guilty of lying to determine to be a liar so doesn't that shane's the evidence isn't that changed things under beds i think were it would change if the defendant would have to come up with some evidence that that the officer was acting improperly on this case but what about the pattern that he had he has a pattern here pattern not only being a liar but they have also evidence that he trained other individuals a pattern is is is not evidence on this case or it it doesn't it doesn't prove anything on this case it proves that he acted improperly on other cases it could have been part of a know a larger constellation of evidence but there is no other evidence what you have is a fairly convicted defendant who wants to get out of prison jacket grandy and say it's kennelly testified that the car stopped directly in front of them suddenly can only say is that he got within five feet of the defendant and so he was able to see them so this courtroom testimony is certainly enough to convict and it contradicts just contradicted by his own which the court best not have to accept as true recantations are frowned upon it is a heavy heavy burden so a defendant simply either legally factually he has not met his burden on this case to show that he