prepared to answer questions on any of the arguments in this case the pillars upon which mr peters convictions were dealt with the identifications of two witnesses on the porch the it mission the election mission that he made that came into the prior consistent inconsistent statement of latasha right in the testimonies of leo thompson and steve ban it arguments here knock out one of these pillars completely and severely weakens another one to argument to the portion of right spire inconsistent statement that describe easters alleged admissions to the shooting should never have been allowed to substantive evidence under subs under subsection one thousand x ten point one a prior inconsistent statement is only admissible for substantive purposes when it's made under oath or when it narrates something that the witness has personal knowledge of in the st simpson or supreme court limited personal knowledge to find personal knowledge substance section one hundred and ten point one in this case this right did not have personal knowledge of the shooting here therefore the portion of her prior inconsistent statement where she discussed this should have been rejected in this case this could not have been reasonable trial strategy fence counsel wanted the whole statement out and when the judge ruled that it was admissible but was open to rejecting it  defense counsel should have asked for this very damaging portion of the statement to be taken out this would not in any way conflict with his defense theory which that priester did not do did not commit the shooting in fact if that's your defense theory you should do everything possible to get out take out any possible admissions to this case miscarry you know that defense counsel wanted the entire statement exactly what are you basing that argument  well it's not our argument we're not going there in this argument but at trial trial counsel his original objection was to the entire prior consistency prior inconsistent statement and how was that was that in writing or an oral objection well i believe it might have been when the state it was either written motion by one party or the other and this was discussed at the hearing on that motion to bring in the prior inconsistent statement so you can't tell me specifically we're hearing the record that i mean i'm sorry i don't have a record say where that is at the moment because i ask because we know that defense counsel cross examined right about the statement and i just didn't see anything in the record where counsel tried to keep the entire state now now and the i believe it was in the post trial motion whe was you know an objection to the statement in terms of how the state offer the prior inconsistent statements the procedure you reasons that you know saying that they didn't ask the right questions as far as how you confront the witness with the prior inconsistent statement but i am not aware of anything in the record where counsel objected to the statement coming in at all as a whole i believe it was like i said i believe it was prior to trial and it might have been when this was st set for trial in the st jury was almost set and then depends counsel became ill so i believe it was towards the beginning of the record but i don't it ok and it's yes i believe it was true i don't have a record for you right now your i'm sorry that's ok thank you but nevertheless once the trial judge indicated that some of these did that the statement could be redacted and the parties actually went through the entire statement and asked for portions of it to be rejected there's no reasonable trial strategy and defense counsel's part not asked for the mission to be rejected it's clearly prejudicial it was the only direct in alleged confession was bragging about a murder extremely prejudicial and the state quoted it in its closing argument so it relied on the stay on this portion of the prior consist inconsistent statement in its attempt to can it when trying to convict mr  ways he had he was balts he had long long braids he was he was wearing plaid pants he was wearing dark pants he had a grill on his teeth he had no grill on his teeth all these descriptions were completely contradictory and they were all provided by the people on the porch the other was council let me ask you this when you have people who are on a porch and they're being shot at that of course you have no one with those who identify mr priester who encountered him prior to the shooting so you know we have as you mentioned two people who identify that significant is that more than we actually need well st of all your in person at the at the jail police station where they were she identified him being she could it not an assortment of pictures but seeing here and person which is the same way she would have seen when the shooting took not overwhelming for for purposes of that this mission should have been allowed and there's lots of other evidence that also has to be considered the witnesses who had divided loyalties or motive sly like right and under hill and steve bennett and chain thompson those these are all people that fingerprints are but only after them they themselves were threatened with arrest and  when you're deciding whether it's overwhelming and yes we have a couple of identifications but we also have all sorts of inconsistent descriptions and other witnesses who had most a lie steve bennett like i mentioned before he actually matched the description that one shooter gave that he had droopy braids which he cut off the day after the offense he was the one that ditched the weapon but lied about where he put it and he again didn't not didn't name priester for weeks and couple weeks until after him self was arrested thompson is the only occurrence witness outside of the people on the porch he admitted to being angry at those people at the party and feeling threatened by them but there's no indication that anyone ever threatened him and he instigated the shooting he himself said i was my idea too to bring a gun he himself could have been charged with this offense you wipe the cell phone clean he was washing his clothing when the police came to his house fire and he only again name priester after he was subject to police interrogation for five hours and this also touches on my rd issue that i raise that this trial counsel was also ineffective for not proposing an accomplice witness struction for mr thompson again he is no doubt an accomplice for purposes of countability and by his own admission in the state this case some of the other evidence hurt is a description matching bennett one of the witnesses on the porch actually identified thompson as the shooter so counsel let me stop you dare you say said at the time that is the person identified as the shooter and then the prosecutor said i'm asking you to read such and such does it say that she identified priester as the shooter and she said yes is that exchange you're talking about i'm i'm she actually identified i think it's when she viewed the lineup to see future identified  suitor from the photo array and i think that's not correct because on the witness stand she was presented with that photo array and the prosecutor was asking her to read where she had put her initials or her signature and said oh your number four or whatever and instead of reading what she wrote she say on the stand that the person identified as the shooter and thought i believe when i read that it indicated that she i did that she said that she had identified thompson but if that if i have gotten it wrong i apologize for that i don't have the record open in front of me or i'd  more but make sure there's not some other instance that you would be referring to you know it was just when she was it wasn't you know it was when it was on the stand so i don't think she was that was the only time that she was on the stand  and but again the the a lot of the wouldn't the evidence was once again not overwhelming and also did include the school met numerous descriptions of the shooter that some did and some did not match priester there weren't there were not as there were only two identifications from the people on the porch so thompson's testimony should have been evaluated as an accomplice witness here and the jury was simply not instructed that again a defense counsel's on reasonable actions in this case again if they had discounted thompson's testimony found unreliable the state would have been left with bennett right and underwood all of whom have no motive to lie and reasons to lie and make contradictory inconsistent statements i mean better under underhill believe was under hell she didn't she was completely unreliable she didn't remember lee remember what happened that night she medicated she has a car accident that she suffered a traumatic brain injury so her testimony is should completely be discounted so basically you have right bennett thompson are the three main witnesses that put priester there aside from the two identifications from the people on the porch again we're not making a reasonable doubt argument here but under the under the circumstances the two emissions by defense counsel clearly prejudiced mr have no other questions we request based on the arguments that i've got my briefs and that i've explained here today that mr priest has convictions be reversed in this case be managed for a new  load to produce the statement i saw if it was a gun because there is some concern that the she might be referring to the prior instances rather than the instant case that there was clarified d so that she was alone the take statement about her seeing the exchange of presumably the gun between the defendant and best would be included in the statement so the there was never any objection at trial or in the cultural motion to the statement i got a head shot so the only way that could be considered is under the rubric of defense counsel claimed it was answer no so this is clearly the issue that's been awaiting should not be considered an even determining as ineffective assistance we have to the standard for in effect of the statement i got a head shot in the statement there's other in her take statement there are other remarks made by the defendant to her that were admitted including the st statement that he a reasonable the given the circumstances here to say ok this right statement just can't be believed including the statement i got a head shot because this was a script s contrary to cause assertion that was not the only admission made by the furnace the evidence so that he told about it was thompson that d that will be a lesson to everybody not to mess with is should be disregarded the evidence here i believe was overwhelming sure each witness may have had been subject to attack but the overall but the same with the question of the instruction on a couple of witnesses the decision whether to request an instruction is clearly a matter of judgment and strategy implies that the defendant is guilty or is involved in the case plus the theater to give an instruction is only in effect if it is critical to the  stealing a fair trial and the accomplice witness instruction is not such a critical instruction the purpose of the compass witness instruction is to tell the jury that they should consider the testimony of a particular witness because of his bias and that purpose was served in this case even without the compass witness instruction based upon the cross examination of the witness the attack on the witness in closing argument and the standard instruction on get just yes you're honest just briefly as it's in response to the comment that the that this was invited to air defense counsel cross examined right about about the statement because he knew that the prior inconsistent prior inconsistent was going to come in when the police officer testified so it's not invited here it was the state that wanted to introduce this entire statement and they went through the statement to redact it and counsel was aware that this was going to go it can go and he had no choice but to cross examine her on it it's not a mistaken strategy here it's state law it's clear that this was error it missions like this do not come in under statutory law and this is an extremely prejudicial harmful piece of evidence comes in against the defendant there's again and this is not there's no strategic reason that goes along with his defense to not keep this out contrary to what my opposing counsel said the the hole of defense was that he didn't do it that somebody else did the shooting whether was thompson whether it was bennett some somebody else did the shooting so to exclude an admission it would be very critical in this case so it definitely be an unreasonable not a sound strategy as far as the nd issue goes the juries are always instructed us to witnesses bias and that's a general instruction if that covered it they would never i p i would not have created an accomplice witness struction this is the type of case that calls out for an accomplice when it's instruction