the supporting conversations the support to that statement from jesse stedman well the defense did not have the opportunity to do a full cross examination with regard to that direct evidence and it went straight to the core of the center of the bull's eye of this case at the time young jesse made his statement the media densification of the person who we saw at the door he answered the door it was that person who was the shooter the identification was made with an observation period which was very short limited lighting observational opportunity he was asked on three separate occasions afterwards can you tell me who it was who was that person and i each of those occasions both to the nine one one call to the first police officer and to the others he said i cannot and that when you mattered very much except for the fact that the defendant was someone that jesse in fact knew you by sight you by name and you by context in terms of being at the premises if it had been a stranger who was charged in this case and there was not a failure to identify the young jesse then the issue wouldn't have been  nearly as critical but in this case there was a situation where just he says i know this person and didn't identify or on three separate occasions in the fence contends that it wasn't until the police in fact planted that memory of the thought in his mind by the constant assertions and isn't this the person showing a single photo that finally young jesse says yes the defense says that there was all these statements before the police showed the picture were jesse deny knowing who it was on all three of those occasions he says i don't know who it is the response from that was a cause you just quoted i don't know who it is without giving the name of the person is that really your argument you know in the first two instances i can there's i agree with the court that i'm inferring that when he calls and says someone came to the door or doesn't identify it coming through the door who shot your mommy or what happened when he doesn't make the identification i'm inferring that he he is saying i don't know who who it is and i agree that the quite frankly i think that's a very reasonable assumption he's on and i'm on one call they're asking him who did this what happened  you know who it was this is the very initial statement this is the very initial statement then they did more investigation but support to support all of that attack which was being made on jesse there was the statement of  wife there i came to her she was still on the ground i turned to my son and i said jesse who did this who did this and he said it was mark the only evidence of identity was the testimony of evidence from this young child the only direct evidence of that there w confessions and other problems with the witnesses i thought i was saying that the only direct evidence because like i consider a statement after the fact again be circumstantial evidence but i don't mind if we group in that category it just doesn't matter to me whether we address it right now or get to it when i talk about the indirect evidence that was there i think going better off i would like to finish my thought on the statement with regards to jesse and the father i'm not trying to ignore it all your honor the question of the  problems with more and johnson and i want to address that but if i can finish my thought with regards to why manual is so important because this is a bit subtle but quite frankly i think it's very very important in my mind to lisa's house saw the jury's looking at this case and when i read it the reason why i highlight start with just the is because that's the the full bright light in of whether or not we call that the only direct evidence or the most important direct evidence whatever to me is the center of the case when the manual trans and says to the jury my son immediately told me immediately told me my wife is still on the ground i said who did this jesse and he says it was mara it was mara it was maher yes it was mara in fact that's there was there was so and identified by name and said it was mara then why is he immediately there after going to the police and saying i believe it was i think the reasonable inference there the powerful compelling inference there is in credibility but just as importantly it puts into dispute the credibility of young jesse because now it's another time when jesse was asked who did this and doesn't say who it is with the cross examination  mann mr governess father you're telling me that your son immediately before you talked to the police told you that it was mara who did it and repeated it on the second occasion tell me sir please why when you talked to the police not five minutes later during a ten to fifteen minute interview you didn't tell him that tell me please why it is you believe in told the police that you thought it was he who did that and then the jury would have laid eyes on a witness and said and would have seen a witness under the what the courts of described as a crucible of cross examination to see what his explanation could possibly have been as to why he would have been just told by his son that mari did it didn't tell bathtub police and in fact told the police that he thought it was the been there clearly admissible there's no dispute it would have been admissible but the courts have said they came out through the back door it came into the back door anyway and so there's never been any question that it was admissible it's always been an issue it's harmless because it got presented to the jury in any event through the testimony of the police officer not missed up and well but the testimony of the police officer who took the statement from that well and the defense position is that that's not nearly good enough that that really handcuffed the defense that the officers testimony kind of claims that cleaned it up where she said it yes i heard it but i didn't really think it was so he wasn't really saying it that strongly it just sort of referred to get me all all this for the father's declarant the father's a person who made this statement so you want to question that the clerics about the statement as opposed to the person who heard the declare and say so what i think is of the that's why i think that the little bit but it's not her impression which is still important we want the jury to take a look at the very person who is making the statement that's the person who they have to be evaluated in terms of credibility and that was denied to them and there's no justification for that enough so the that because it never was said by jesse that would have been yet another time your honor where jesse was asked by his father what happened you know who it was you know who it was i who said he was yelling for said i don't know and that would have been another powerful to impeachment of young and ten year old the other direct evidence be happy to turn to it now your honor as to whether or not the statements of moore and johnson which are the confessions of my clients there were actually three snitches there they were one of whom said that my client never made any statements and didn't talk about her case at all that morning johnson said that they in fact that she that they got the statements from her and she did underneath and hope to get some money the fact that they were in there with the person they said they don't remember making the statement to the police they were they made it's tape recorded statements they were interviewed about it and it was utterly absurd for them  a it's utterly unbelievable for anyone to see when they take a look at the statement saying i don't remember saying that i don't remember actually saying it to the police i think what they're clearly the inference was is they're tearing to take it back they don't want to be labeled snitches later on they don't want to go into the public light of doing it but whatever they change materially what happens and because of that apparently defense counsel who is in the first murder trial he had ever done felt that that recantation or that major change however you characterize it was such that you didn't have to do any investigation to try to impeach and it was as if putting on was a tactical decision made by counsel to investigate because they weren't going to testify against his client ye recant or change it's going to come in anyway because competent counsel would know that prior statements like that are going to come in through the back through the tape recorder and they did and of course it is so counsel should have obviously known that so he would have to know that the jury johnson's own father didn't believe her that mr mr johnson mr johnson's own father believed that her his daughter was on drugs that mr john mr johnson's own father believes she's a liar and that mr johnson's own mr johnson's own father said that she had changed your version when she talked to him they would have found out the priors that miss moore had in other cases and would have been able to impeach yes if you want to call it a decision that i'm going to  it's the state of course but but but you do so by doing the same thing that you have to do when somebody is on the stand testifying the fact that i guess it's a little bit more subtle for a defense counsel to be needing to do that investigation because he exists because you're not to have the witness there to be able to cross examine but you have to present this through an either through the witness more in johnson themselves or you bring the father in and you do exactly what the defense was able to do  present afterwards namely talk to the witnesses and do proper representation and do proper investigation on the case while this was going on stopping the defense either through the conduct of the court and the conduct of the fence counsel from presenting a full defense on the part of of the clients percent the people were allowed to present a whole slew of passionate sympathetic materials on behalf of the victim totally irrelevant as well as attack drug user someone who uses this kind of drug usually after someone who uses heroin and paint her and attack her character and i we have to go into that it but i think at this point i reserve my the balance of my lee refers to them in the briefing as a wife or husband wife common law wife girlfriend and yet he also criticizes his part is the they simply evidence the fact that mr gold in this testify that they've been married for thirteen years when his wife in spanish a j is pronounced like a y he was familiar with with the talent but he didn't really know who he recognized and when after his mother was shot after he had answered the door and  then told his mother there was someone at the door and his father came running that from the garage apparently from my reading of the record the garage is on a sort of behind the apartment on like an alley and that was actually that because of the contention between there the neighbors that one of these uncles was parking in front of their garage where he would go visit them in the park in the alley and lock their garage and that's what started this whole thing but when mr called him as ran up to the apartment after he heard the gunshots he asked jessie to call nine one one and he said who did this and jessie's words to his father at that moment were it was m model that girl that's always with you that is what that is not only what jesse testified he said that is also what mr dalton that's testified with said to him now that the issue about the impeachment of mr dalton as wasn't so much with the statement that just he said to him it had to do with his statement to the police because when the police arrived in response to the nine one one call the took the children to a neighbor's apartment the police were interviewing mr dalton has and he's in the  questioning that he said to the police at that time it must have been the prosecution's theory of the case was that the boy didn't know her name exactly and he was close when he said mata because her real her first name is mara but he didn't know th well it was someone he had seen around the apartment complex he knew she was always hanging around with  between the time that the nine one one call and the time of the a p before a woman named martin they didn't have a last name was only twenty minutes so all of this confusion counts would like you to believe happened and all of these times were where he represents not just he could have identified her jenny said he didn't know what was the only time he ever said he wasn't sure was was when the police initially spoke to him he was in a neighbor's apartment and one of the father simply didn't process the information that he didn't know who mara placenta was and so the name didn't mean anything to him i have a particular problem with johnson and more in the failure to investigate it's pretty clear that the temp testimony albeit through the words of somebody else or in other ways came in the confessions came in and the decision not to investigate these two people seems to me to have been utterly unprofessional i mean you've got all these problems with the child's identification you have these two confessions that come in you don't do anything to investigate these jailhouse snitches well the attorney the defense attorney at trial knew that these witnesses were going to recant that when i called at the preliminary hearing prosecution that was what he argued and that they weren't to be believed and shouldn't you back that up with some investigation but i think i think the fact that they were actually in custody at the time on other charges obviously and if they had we can't of what the they just went south that's right the whole thing that's right and so there was there was a lot of but doesn't a defense attorney have an obligation to try to attack the integrity of the jail of the suppose of confessions to jailhouse informants who are notoriously unreliable to what end to to show that the confession has never happened or not just that the the women weren't saying well we don't remember but these were manufactured in the first place but the whole point of this  they would have you heard of leslie byrne and white i mean there is a long documented documented history in this country explaining exactly how jailhouse snitches manufacture confessions and evidence in order to try to curry favor with law enforcement this is documented i think lou that is the man who had made the phone calls from the jail and who pretended the probation officer and got information and i think that's right there were two hundred twenty five cases in los angeles alone that were investigated by the grand jury which documented all of the stuff the most the simplest thing in the world is the manufacture a confession or our evidence from somebody that your instant jail with you know the difference that this information was gathered very quickly and for the preliminary hearing in this case this information was she said she was on roaches which is i guess what they call a hypno and a pellet like tested positive for hiv not that she said i told the little boy to go get his mother that's exactly what just testified how often that she says that she shot the woman with the three fifty seven and them they never recovered a gun but the bullets recovered showed that it could only have been fired by thirty eight or three fifty seven i know and that was basically that the essence of the information that was conveyed through those tape recorded statements so if you really would have served any purpose to show well th incredible they're criminals in a felony convictions because their credibility had already been impeached by virtue of the fact that they had essentially recanted when they said they didn't remember making the state mostly if i'm going there in jail they simply say to somebody why are you in here while they say i that argument is reasonable and that it was consistent with the authority of the united states supreme court in terms of evidentiary rulings and credibility of witnesses and that if this you what do you looking at are looking at the  the petitioner this was on the original he does corpus petition and that was the pellets counsel martha since his counsel put it forth for the first time in the first after after i had filed the response i'm sorry the the answer to the petition it was put forward in the traverse to that answer besides what the court just said they could comport created out of quite basic facts and so forth jones was someone who could have provided that information independently because that person received information from her father they were all still laced and that could have been the source of how they got that information this it's something about the fact that the district court ruled that this recantation or even if it's a change somehow makes it less credible that the that they shouldn't be there or they were already attacked as a trial counsel let me tell you it works exactly the opposite when a snitch comes forward gives a false statement by the way it wasn't the words of the officer who brought their statement it was their own words the tape recording actually was played to the comes forward and says and confesses or makes a statement to the police that someone has confessed to me and the tape recording is there and then when the when he or she gets to court and says i don't remember what happened or it didn't really happen or anything like that that actually adds credibility to the original inference it requires even more aggressive cross examination in peach because what usually happens is that the jury thinks and the d a would argue the reason why snitch is changing her mind is because it really happened but if i go forward in the light of day and say really happened everybody's going to call me a snitch and i'm going to get killed when i go to prison because they didn't get what i wanted out of only a small part of this case the combination of it all was so forth it was very big and for the district court to conclude that if there was error it was of them in the so harmless matter and that we should grant great difference quite frankly this was an error of great proportion and trial counsel he says had i known how to do this better i would have done it differently and i would not do this again his declaration of before this court part of the record he said this was my first murder trial and had i known what with the investigation of the johnson her says johnson herself is a liar because someone says so someone who the jury would believe because that someone is her own father that johnson herself is a different statements about what really happened to someone again who would be believed because it was her father that johnson is on drugs and was given up her life to these drugs and was not believable in a variety of ways someone who said that would have been belie to answer the prosecution's question how could they possibly have gotten this information if it didn't come from our namely if it came from this other source how do we know it came from concern to the others we only know because that was a statement that was given to the police o the fence investigators afterwards if that was available for that week there's no way to know exactly with that if these snitches develop this by exactly the court said they read it in the paper the heard about it was a high publicity case it got a lot of publicity at the was on the news and i don't know ira transcript of all the news reports that came out with regards to this that hit the t v it was it was big the point that it is the whole issue would have been placed to the jury saying you can't believe these people and if you can't believe them what are you left with the shaky identification of of of us scared ten year old boy and then all of this was an a level playing field dismissed the