dunn at the time of trial so he was confronted with one witness who had at least two prior convictions that came out before the jury but at the same time had another witness who was perfectly understandable there was nothing to impeach her credibility there importantly his decision not to pursue any line of argument regarding kerry impeached credibility it the reason why that matters is that there was another court's decision was one that was clearly error or are clearly incorrect and of course underlying that analysis is the brady the brady analysis and whether or not there was a substantial eyewitnesses as defense counsel has discussed with the primary source of evidence that resulted in the conviction of mr di the two victims in this matter were able to bring to the police the picture of and the name of an individual that they said affirmative identify the trial sufficiently that a jury can tell to beyond a reasonable doubt requests which was what for criminal convictions which at these third stage of an inch or a hearing the state conceded would have been mooted lucy's probationary status because even believe it is accurate to say that the defense counsel that one time did not know what information had not been invited to put in the information that this certainly would be a very different argument to the state of responding to a discovery that said we simply don't have  because that would have been asking an accurate that would be different i mean that is not what i was so very early on into it so he knew they didn't respond to his request but he was unaware of the specific information he would have received also serve to establish a motive for the defendant you know your honor they would not know i mean a motive for the defendant to choose that house to do the home  do think isn't time to stand by the senate and not have made a difference even if it has been disclosed earlier and the reason is because this is not a case where the police had targeted a defendant and were attempting to find evidence in support of their belief tha strategy was not one of proving bias or credibility issue witnesses but instead one of mistaken identity that they had simply targeted the wrong individual that they had a partial glance at his appearance because he had covered  he said there was no brush between so the defense counsel would have limited resources with which to undermine the credibility of the witnesses against the defendant in that and furthermore even if there were other defensive and that's that's one way of looking at it however trial counsel went on to explain why it was he thought that that would not have been a surprise that way and the reason he would not win a strategy has to do with to some extent the fact that th different result if that information had been provided at the point time when it should have been the trout court in this case after considering all of the testimony and evidence presented to you in a post conviction hearing said no there was no reasonable probability that there would have been a different doubt if the state provided that information that i'm sure about and that's been looking at all of the information here the fact that one of the defendants and prior criminal convictions nevertheless the jury found  to be sufficiently persuasive the fact that trial counsel said and was able to explain why he would not use this information in a way that was different than the way it was and as a result as a result  hearing at the postcondition hearing he said he did research the criminal histories of both evans and casey and did remember finding that mr evans had prior actions he went on to say he did not recall finding any prior convictions for this case yeah not remember and then that is an important distinction decisions about whether to change course or whether to proceed pro se so that he could use this incredibly rich information on the most damaging witness that he had for years and to strong belief and that if they didn't know there were any grounds for impeachment and again none of this information was presented to the jury you can speculate as to how it would play out but none of this information was ever