morning your honors me please the core of cabot the paul way is innocent of the crimes for which she was indicted unless she had actual knowledge that her children were being you in a manner to create a substantial risk of death or great bodily harm and this fight they acknowledge how it was we left them with the man who she knew for a fact knew was abusing me put it another way how the public is innocent of the crimes for which she was indicted unless the evidence shows that she was of the mindset of walking around the streets saying yes i know that scott is home with the kids and i know he superiorly beats the kids to the point that they know they may well die while in his care but i don't care i'll let him watch the kids and if they die they  that is of course the drastic drastic conclusion that no court has ever received at least until there's a good bit of innocence proceeding below and what i want to describe for your honour's is the extent to affirmatively yaps sense of any such evidence and in fact affirmative evidence that that was not the case let me begin if i may with the late judge and he presiding at the trial took it very seriously he said you took over forty pages of no use during the trial now the point you know is that the jury that instructed the jury that convicted miss polly was instructed that it was enough for them to find that she should have known that she was negligent so the jury's verdict was opaque as to whether they found that or they found that she had actual knowledge they didn't after finding that under the instruction but judge thought it was critical for his in seeing in terms of whether to impose a white sentence for him to make a finding on whether this was in actual knowledge case over whether this was a case of should have known which we now know could not support you know now we're making that finding as part of the sentence we all know the standard that is used a preponderance of the evidence standard in standard talked about here in the certificate of innocence so he wasn't saying the proof of x was not beyond a reasonable doubt he was making a straight up finding under preponderance here's what he said on page twelve fifty of the transcript he said from the point of view of capital pollack subject of awareness what she knew she felt she had made a good choice of boyfriend he said she didn't realize this was another bad choice she thought she made a choice of a good right choice she talked about picking his taking the kids to dairy queen and so forth that very thing that made her feel he was a good choice throughout this period probably also blind her blinded her to some of the things that were occurring around her he goes on to say she should have no idea i'm fine with the jury's verdict that she should have known it was negligent not to know responsibility to figure it out he should have recognized of course that's consistent with so much evidence in the case there were so many people who knew so many of the same things about the poly her mother for example a registered nurse her mother knew about the fall down the stairs her mother knew about them all in the death of her mother packed that constantly for jamie to see any sort of bruising that was no your not guilty would be a showing that the state could not beyond a reasonable doubt prove innocence i am willing to assume and i'm assuming today as the argument then think at this lives there's a delta there's a delta in which there is proof by a preponderance and yet still not proof beyond a reasonable doubt where that person is not guilty but i'm going to argue in the way i'm presenting this case right now is that person would be innocent necessarily for purposes of the certificate of innocence now there's another argument to be made and i'm not waiving the argument that when the legislature used the word it is it actually was tapping into the accepted definition that is used for example in the freestanding claim of innocence under washington in the post conviction act in federal court which is it no sure it could convict but i'm not relying on that because i don't need to re who is just fine leaving her grandchildren with this person who they know is abusing and ready to cause cause then we know that's not true we know that when the oldest child jack was diagnosed with as that the mother was so concerned about his health and this is all in the record that she reached out and said i don't want him in the house because people are smoking he needs to come live with me so we are not exposed to secondhand smoke and yet we're supposed to girl who the evidence shows was in fact not excited about her new step father figure in the picture in that we now get hindsight know why she wasn't examining it's a tragic awful story that my client  this tormented by every single moment of every single day and she didn't realize that she should have realized it absolutely easier but we keep her from this girl not believing for a second  make sense to you and by the way it was a middle school on the bottom and the mother said yeah registered nurse the mother said that makes sense as does the sister know well last thing that a person who knows that their child is  injuries should have told the defendant that her boyfriend was abusing the children no i'm not plenty that's dispositive just saying nothing this court said is contrary to what tex hanson had concluded but even more critically when it came to the supreme court the supreme court not only reversed out on reasonable doubt and i understand that i was talking with just as she had about a moment ago that's a different standard and i understand why you know various ones of those pieces that work in not fade this does not get to reasonable the court said they would give absolutely no evidence to support this inference for example one of the issue nothing to do with scott pushing child but even children who were abused also have accidents and then the court said whoa the fall therefore was simply a fall it was not evidence of jamie's predicate holdings about the individual issues that the state had been reminding on and the ball of the case doctrine is very clear that it's not only the ultimate holding that binds other courts but it is i the court says there is not any evidence and the doctor didn't see it and then the court said and it ties into what was said in the last argument the court says any inference of any conclusion that that shows abuse or knowledge would said you know he didn't know but the judge who just looked at the papers including the supreme court without ever acknowledging the supreme court decision said i'm going to rely on the speeches and the supreme court said as a matter of certificate yes three of those things are considered a yes no dispute about them so it's only number three yet we're looking at number two it says the petitioner is innocent of the offense to in the indictment or information or his or her arts or omissions charged in the indictment or information did not constitute a felony or misdemeanor against the state ye would seem that you know it is very different from this case because in this case the supreme court looks at each specific piece of evidence and so this and this omission finding of innocence then every time the court review finds that the state failed the prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that person would be entitled to the certificate of innocence when they have it that's the here that there was a tin in which the children used up one hand and which they used to stand and it had bent out of shape which hadn't been the case before and it was toothpaste all over jamie which was consistent with the story that she return to mr leonard saying that she was in denial that she took another well she took starving wishes accounts well and had face value now the fact is that our case that's going on in the supreme court's decision there's the ultimate conclusion of justice she said i understand your point that proved beyond a reasonable go and that conclusion may not like governor innocence but standard requires beyond a kind of affirmative in the show which was her own testimony scott's confession the point that the parents not having gong or believe there was any abuse even though they were in the house her was in denial she took things at face value but this was not a woman who walked the streets saying my children might be being kill as i speak and i just don't g