lying about the only physical evidence connecting mr people to the crime fell below an objective standard of reason was no one contests that count tried once and knew that mr harris was the one that was sitting in the driver's seat where the murder weapon was found he allowed the jury that mr harrison mr powell to mr powell were telling the truth about who was driving the car and therefore the law of the jury to believe that i believe the prosecution's theory that the person that owned the murder weapon was the person sitting in the driver's  had no excuse to do this before trial mr people sent him a letter containing both the police report showing that mr harris was the driver and mr harris's charge sheet which charge him with driving offenses from the car chase difference in the outcome of the jury and i understand you're saying that the amount that you are to believe this but is this the only piece of evidence that was that formed that connecting link to that one that's a great question the so the evidence that connects him to the crime is the fact that he was in the car where the murder weapon was found and the testimony of powell and him those are the only so there's physical evidence he was in the car where the murder weapon was found and then the other occupants in the car testified oh he was sitting where the fact it was found and he told us that he used it to shoot the others that the that the universe of evidence that the jury had before it and the as was all talk about the fact that he was sitting in the seat where the murder weapon was found the processor use that to bolster the story of these two affairs and pollo who the prosecutor had to acknowledge were criminals and had you know the jury had a reason not to believe them but bolstered by this evidence that well he was there and he was found and trial counsel knew this he even asked harrison tell but the charges they got in the case and he could have hit one more question would have been and you were also charged with you know with these driving offenses of the state you know state argues i think that the attorney's decision not to you know seek to impeach powell and harris was you know sound trial strategy because asking more questions about the car chase and circumstances surrounding it may have opened up a can of worms that would have been harmful to mr peoples that is their main argument but and and so how do you respond so i don't think that it makes sense because there were already there was already a lot of testimony about the car chase including the fact that the car was stolen that they were chased by the police and they crashed during the chase and that they ran away afterwards were caught in fact one of the officers that participated that drove the car actually chasing during the car chase officer liz are testified at trial about placing them in his police car  yet no one asked officer lazhar was the defendant the driver it would have been one question to him one question to harris or apollo it would have been really easy to bring this out and there and they since they were already testifying about what happened i don't see see how that was going to hurt when the testimony was out there in fact it would help because the jury came away with the idea that mr people's was the one that was you know leading the car chase  i understand that you are you're arguing that this was ineffective assistance of counsel but you're also arguing that the defense had an obligation a duty to cross examine these people to bring this out but also the prosecution had an obligation to do to  words the gun it's found on the drivers or more remember i sat down underneath her mr people's would have been in the jag the car crashes he dumps the gun and he's out the gun that was used in the murder that was her here incredibly testimony that people's will to shoot solely on his position in the jag they claim that peoples told them the ma'am it was which he executed the seed so even if you take out the gun location testimony don't you still have these two witnesses testify as to the manner of execution per perpetrated by people you absolutely do and it came down to in this case  by the time officer it was our was on the stand he had fired all of his guns and he had he had nothing to impeach them with and it would have been one question officer of us are was mr people's the driver that you chase and then he could have attacked started attacking the credibility of the story because that was his holding back it was that they were in the cell to get it for a month and they hooked this up this story up remarkably similar stories that were present that they said were told that you know very different times but but none of them really worked he ended up in his closing argument relying on the fact that they were fountains and you know and then they shouldn't be believed but the prosecutor came back and said well there were  sure but look you know we have we have corroboration and they're not just stories well you know there's always the possibility that there could have been a better job done that the cross examination could have been you know more  pointed in poignant and more effective but that's not really the standard whether it could have been better whether it could have you know been more hollywood style or whatever what is it about this that that you  far below the standard that it constituted ineffective assistance the i mean i guess what it comes down to is was what we were saying is is that he had he had fired his guns and they didn't work and he and he failed to to use it and it was it would have turned the process with nice about it too is it would have turned the prosecutor's theory on it that her theory was the person who was in the driver's seat brought the gun there that was the murder weapon they owned it he could it if he had done this he would have turned around and said well look the prosecutor's theory is right mr harris was in the driver's seat he dropped the weapon there he was the one with the merc can you can you point to any cases where a federal court has grante is is probably our best case i like it the best because that was one where he failed to call an alibi witness and that was actually how and you can look at this in the same way where he he felt that he could have called any number of officers those in the police report and i asked all of them who was driving the car and i think also kalki booker which talks about where the defense counsel was given a report the report was was important in fact and he theory was there was just absolutely no reason and given all evidence about the carcass he had no objective reason not to use it and i think that i think what it shows is that he was completely unprepared for the case he didn't with harrison powell testifying that mr peoples at mit that he killed mr clark right so i irrespective of wherever the gun might be located or who was who was you have one shot to hurt the credibility of the people whose you know when it's a he said she said it essentially you've got one shot with her credibility you're told to do it and you don't do it that ineffective assistance and when the prosecutor is on the other side of and then she asked thirteen questions though about mr powell not getting a benefit he got six he got six years out of his sentence because of his cooperation and she spent a page and a half that's working no one hundred forty no one and thirteen different questions are you saying that the court held that people's both did not raise these claims earlier in the trial court's opinion is to say the least inarticulate and it does appear clear from the record that he did not raise them or refusing to review them on d three grounds which is the failure to raise them on direct appeal so are you saying that any error in this case should go to the benefit of the government ground and we do have a trial court order that expressively relies on the independent an adequate state ground and that it's discussion of the two does not take away from its express reliance on d three and so if claims are procedur it's whether they were unreasonable in holding that in the michigan court of appeals and they were it was reasonable to reject that claim because as judge paul noted it it was a good strategy to keep out the facts of that car chase the car chase that satmar that the crash in the jaguar while it was mentioned in the trial not all of the facts came in surrounding it one of the most important facts that was left out was that it was a home invasion that powell and harris and peoples were involved in a claim or a case that was very similar to the one he was being charged with with murder the fence counsel could legitimately want to keep that type of information from the jury now the jury was told in kind of bland terms what took place during that car chase that they followed him there was no reason given for why they were following him if you review officers testimony there was no mention of a home invasion there is no mention of attempting to rob there was no mention important and i think even if you if it undermines his credibility and a jury of five harris and powell not worthy oh belief then there could easily exonerate people so why does this not so critical bit of testimony that the guns changed positions that they were thrown without one even thrown out the car and the most dynamic he said abbot is that came from their charges was not who was the driver and that nine millimeter said was found on the driver's lord most important piece that came out of that was that the only person that was alleged to have been at the murder scene was also in the car where the undisputed murder weapon was in other words there's no there's no dispute that the murder weapon a nine millimeter said because acts were ballistics testified to that how could not have been a murder scene because he had his boss or supervisor come in from the detroit news company and testify that he was at work that during that time they never the stand all of that but my question is did the prosecution represent and argue to the jury that people's was the driver i think she used the evidence represent to the jury through either through an evidence representation or argument of fact which they knew to be false there's no evidence that the prosecutor knew testified he was the driver the officer did not testify he was right in fact the officer at that trial testified that they were that they got out immediately when running it was a pretty bad car crash and know the details and you have to remember that the murder was being prosecuted in wayne county the south the car chase was being prosecuted in a different county and if you look at the sheet that lives harris's convictions he was convicted of two offenses regarding the car chase one was unlawful driving away of an automobile u d a that does not require that he pled guilty to that it does not require you to be the driver you can be guilty of u t a and not be the driver the one that would require you to be the driver the fleeing the looting he pled no contest to so he didn't even admit with a guilty plea that he was the driver so i think the prosecutor did allowing testimony from harrison powell that people's was the driver but there's no indication that she knew that was false if it is  supposedly that mr harris was the driver of the vehicle is a correct statement as to that policeman i have not said i don't i have not seen the police report i don't i was he has referenced records savin that says there is a police report that said harris was the driver i have not seen it but i don't know that the prosecutor saw that it's a police report that came from the subsequent car chase not the prosecutor's county and what's really more important when i want to put but what is equally as important is whether the prosecutor knew that or not is the question of whether he was denied a fair trial because of it because the issue is and he gets here is relief because there may have been not consequential because i heard such marbling arguing about whether or not this could impact on her mind the credibility of the two key witnesses on whose testimony the ultimate conviction was base ask questions about was isn't there additional evidence that made these witnesses credible and that was important to the conviction and so that was my phrasing and i didn't mean to quote him and that is indeed true there was evidence a lot of evidence they had nothing to do with the position of the driver in the car and that being how in harris's testimony regard they weren't there there was no allegation they were there yet they could detail the fact that he threw his keys that they tended to get into his house that he ran to the back or was shot once in the chest that he got up that he ran to the front and was shot additionally twice in the head that he went back the next day people said that there were people on the lawn the next day and couldn't get back at all of that is under spewed in corroborated how in harris would have no way of knowing that they were not participants in that murder scene and yet they could reciting detail what exactly the evidence showed the shot in the shop where the body ended up and in addition there's no way to explain the only person who was at that murder scene was also in the car where the murder weapon was found that is a very consequential piece of evidence and nothing about the position of the driver disputes or undermines any of that other evidence and so when you're talking about whether or not prosecutor knew that that a question that has we asked before relief is granted impeached powell and harris as to these various things not only would have gone to the issue of where the gun was located in his drive but also the credibility of harris and powell who shared a cell for a while in terms of their testimony that people's it made it to the murder and then i guess is the stitches that together that argument the he would argue that there's prejudice here because the jury i think of they were deadlocked it a closed case they asked word transcript at some point in the so i guess the argument is that the state's case is pretty much premised on harris and powell in their testimony on ice and i know you say they're of course there's other evidence and that once there impeach them all the many of these other evidence three matters that help to convict would be sort of impeached well two things you're right just  are there is other evidence that would be unaffected by the the positioning of the driver which i just mentioned the second thing is yes it is how could undermine generally the credibility of any prosecution witness especially ones like our own harris but that but that desire to do so hath he weighed against what prejudicial impact the evidence of the impeachment could have in the state has determined in this case that the prejudicial impact of opening the door to a pot the possible evidence about him having done engaged in a home invasion only months after he was being charged with a very similar crime could have on the jury that's for the trial that's for the trial attorney some way and while if there could have been some value in undermining the credibility as there is an average case you have to attorney whether it's worth the risk and this trial attorney decided it was not worth the risk that was reasonable under strickland and even more so the double layer a reasonable under the court of appeals opinion that rejected it and i see my  guess i'd like to make two points on this the first is defense's theory was that maybe they got together while they were in the jail cell and they came up with the exact same story on and what would great about this is they both  about the exact same thing so he come to the jury and say look they didn't get a cut of this story and they both said the same thing if they had got together with a story they wouldn't of they would have lied about you know the exact same detail which incidentally was the detail that put harris in the driver's the other day and i guess here's a way to think about how this affected the trial i don't buy to read the entire prosecutor's closing statement but read it under the assumption that harris and powell had to lie about who was sitting there and that how was lying about getting benefits now the jury was told that paris some power received some sort of immunity yes they were told they were they received immunity they were not told then that powell got six years off the sentence he denied that was super asleep apparently the same thing only we're asking for if we if we if there isn't granted  said we don't have the transcripts and then that is recorded side of the case right away we think that the district court should have given the importance of this and the fact that it becomes accepted he views petition if he can't get it now and so doing so and you're your law firm of course is a service to mr peoples but it's also a service to the public at large so very much appreciated both lawyers today have done just a fine job of presenting their respective arguments and we thank you so but that case will be submitted and you may call the next case