jailhouse informants are perhaps the most unreliable evidence the state can present in a criminal case in in her next case that was the only evidence against him this court should reverse mr murdoch's first  concocted their stories in exchange for favorable treatment in their own cases and secondly the trial court failed to ascertain the jurors understanding of any of the rules for thirty one the principals in this case because the evidence was five in april of two thousand and eight microform and was arrested and then very night he told the police all oh yes someone in an old murder if you'll get my charges reduced he's arrested in class one drug charges they're reduced to class fo sentence productions in their cases and informants case not only did he receive a sentence reduction in consideration that escaped charge but he also received total immunity from prosecution even though he admitted to being involved in  evidence should be granted and the forerunner of the test are whether the evidence has been discovered since the trial whether it could not have been discovered prior prior to trial through the exercise due diligence with the evidence was no parents mother after the trial was over on july twenty second two thousand and nine after the trial was over murdoch's mother came forward and said hey i just found out they can process just told me basically that he knows to these witnesses and he he that foreman had testified against murder and told them hey i talked to foreman about a year ago and he admitted planting murder and someone i just didn't know it was you until right now so there's no question the evidence was received after trial and also an immense cover prior to trial because even rossum barnett didn't know they had information so there's no way short of interviewing anyone who's ever spoken to these other inmates there's no the way the attorneys could have discovered this information prior to trial it's nothing to what is already before the jury that of course didn't happen in this case the jury knew nothing about any of this information they didn't know they came in sullivan head created their stories together had collaborated on what to say they didn't know that foreman hit it needed to planting them around someone they didn't know any of this information and so although the state claims it is the militant because these witnesses were already impeached in some ways because the jury already knew that they were expecting sentence productions that's all the jury knew the jury didn't know they were expected sentence productions the jury didn't know any of this other information about to be in the inmates making up their information together the inmates decided to collaborate on but this is testimony that would absolutely create new questions in the mind of the trier of fact the jury as to whether they're even drastically less credible than they appeared at trial i don't know exactly whether they were whether they were evidence should be scrutinized more closely and that's absolutely what we have here we have evidence that so many questionable and this indicates that the evidence should be scrutinized more clothes the evidence that was admitted at trial th standard for this court it would be i've been slightly slightly changed the resulting retrial essentially is this court confident that justice was done as another as another phase people versus ortiz put it in this court confident that justice was done or is there some question as to whether apparently anthony king was not actually in the car he's not the person who was killed but that that's the testimony foreman provided your honor i want to be just to highlight a couple of the inconsistency conformists testimony in addition to the fact that he was receiving immunity foreman also testified that he only expected that they would be robbing king and was quote frozen in shock when murder started firing bullets but you are never going to testify that before the incident even happened as i just mentioned burn it said i'm going to smoke reduced because of this and then four minutes on the stand oh you talk to so many people about this incident it's hard to even remember what happened so who knows where he got this information if he possibly was the shooter who is receiving immunity for that the testimony of an inmate who was a person of interest in a murder and therefore head on motive to implicate someone else was not reliable and not sufficient even to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in that case in williams the court reversed the conviction outright but that's exactly what we have that is microform in a nutshell a person of interest in the murder who devoted to implicate someone else and i'd also like to draw this court's attention briefly to people vs belt map which was decided just two years ago in which this court hel regarding the trial judge's finding that the evidence was not newly discovered the trial judge clearly found that rossum burnette were not credible at least insofar as thing they had indicated that they were able to pass information along leader conversation even under vernon's testimony and foreman also never said that he wasn't telling the truth when he said that he told not someone that doesn't mean that he didn't truthfully have the information and testify about it  that that conversation if it indeed took place at all occurred before defendant's trial so the trial judge would have believed clearly when you found on the record that the evidence wasn't newly discovered that either the talk before the trial not knowing what the case is about so he was concerned enough to find out when and where the trial was going and go to it and yet he had absolutely no idea what his friend's son was on trial for and his friend apparently was concerned enough to tell you when the trial was going to be get am that morning so for him could have gone to hugo's a few hours after the shooting like he said he went to you and other news first and then said to me those also for me did not say that defendant said he was going to shoot someone while they were still are riding in order to implicate someone that's not a truthful statement planting a murder does not imply telling the truth also the state claimed that foreman never admitted that it was murder after he planted the murder and that's actually not true not in the in the initial statements and it didn't