probably change the result at trial that  confidence in the verdict hey you don't have to prove by any preponderance of evidence that you would have won and didn't want to certainly put this whole trial in a different life i a lot of the corroborating evidence that came out of all of them as to chico said it wasn't just ms did she go over if i pronounce her name correctly who implicated herself the other individual mr highl implicated himself too it's in the record that she knowledge to police that he had said these things and i believe that the the question of the admission of the hiring declaration has been briefed and it was  over he didn't he didn't acknowledge certain things but even assuming he took it all to occur i say to manifestly erroneous i say it was rather reasonable the fact that you have all these different confessions out there in all these different custody after not having her for medications at the time i believe that's a question for the jury i make on earth how much weight should be given to that confession to give we have all of this country evidence or before or even the most important c this record that says that she or reasonable that that she orders will be violated this agreement that must be it was the one who was going to put on all the witnesses and used to man all of the facts of the case so it's pretty hard to say imply to me not that my testimony was not going to be consistent with the testimony or the statement given on june sixth now if you put yourself and self in the shoes of the prosecutor is virtually announcing that her testimony is not going to be truthful no i don't believe that it is i believe that it is showing that she is trying to comply with the agreement up that it wasn't just trying to comply with the agreement as a time change that he was consistent and he was worried about that weren't consistent all he would have to do is say hey this is what this says this is what this says let's decide what's the truth here i don't think that's what it is and i'm going to the record of actually what his current attorney said and i don't think  the state's attorney with regard to putting on a witness who she thinks may not be telling the truth or knows that do not tell the truth not to do that in fact he should not do that i think he would i mean some of these we think the pre fight talk about how they were listed that names were listed in yes i can't really argue with the fact that maybe they should have done more and offered lower and i'm not quite sure where the problem was there an quite sure i should with my last name know how to say that but i doubt and now she's on the stand denying those statements and he finds her credible now now now that she's no longer a heroin addict now that she's not telling her family friends a million this evidence but and he didn't consider that the state failed to disclose this evidence but ultimately found that the favorable evidence that was understood to not undermine the confidence in the verdict and because of that there doesn't seem to be incriminating statements and it's entered into after i believe it was june of two thousand and seven was the video the second hour of the court thankfully the point of the distinction these were all know all the evidence that had come in at her trial the receipt establishing what they would have been this convenience store of that she had never said anybody approached her vehicle these things will all move on when they entered into the agreement they the obligations of her with