my name's paul turner i'm with the federal public defender office in las vegas nevada i represent mr evans i have submitted a couple of days ago i thought x j got twenty eight j letter to the court hoping that it arrived for some reason i don't it i'm not sure has the clerk's office received it yet i have to tell you that our court is so large that sometimes it takes two or three days just to get from the mail room to the court said that quote all perjury pollutes the trial making it hard for jurors to see the truth this is a polluted case this case that we had before you today it's polluted because the key witness in the case lied at the trial the key linchpin of the prosecutor's case right now you've raised nine issues as this i have you know for us to consider which one are we referring to but this is ground one this is the brady argument in general with the failure of the changed slightly because there where you have evidence that the prosecutor knew or should have known of the perjury the standard becomes significantly higher if you will for the state and lower for the defendant whereas the perjury client doesn't agree with i don't think she's lying but that doesn't have much to do with whether or not that there's a problem here withholding under brady well you are gone or i think if and i'm sure your honour's done this if you look at the police report about her and if perjury well i'm assuming i have proof of it in the record here where i know the jury didn't believe you cortin but leave the record and didn't believe that the jury believed the witness i know you are juries believe lying witnesses unfortunate sometimes clients think they're lying and they're not but you keep calling it perjury but there's no finding of perjury but you're honest and that's one point and what i'd like to pass to court today is to send this case back and give us the evidence you're hearing we didn't wasn't on ground one it didn't have anything to do with ground one he the state court judge michael douglas limited it to one issue so that that was a truncated hearing and i think the district judge must have been confused by that because he obviously seems to be talking  this mr evans got a full hearing below and he did not and i think he's entitled to a hearing and and we'd like to address those factual issues if there are obviously the concerns that you have your honor and i'd like to have a chance to address them in an evidentiary hearing if we could  i think we can show clearly just like the law this lady was they were it was a larson was a petty thief who zimmer was to rob newspaper racks of money that's what she did for a living she had done it six times as the record shows and that night in department her name that she used to to enter a newspaper boxes she did this and she was good at it and that's how she earned her income but that night she tells the jury that she was just innocently over there that night she just sort of is out for a ride and  very importantly she has a bunch of coins with her well coins courser are a motive everyone in las vegas one way or another probably has coins with them but this lady had coins because her job was to get coins out of newspaper racks and that's what she was doing that night we feel we fiction was more important in the truth and that's wrong and that should be reversed by this court and sent back to give us a hearing on it a hearing on whether or not if there was perjury would it be that well that that would be i'd like to get the prosecutor on the stand i mean you know i'd like to ask the where where she she very frankly tells the police about her career as a robber of newspaper there are other aspects here the defendant asked for an accomplice instruction the court the judge here found that she was an aider and abettor and yet he wouldn't give an accomplice instruction i don't know how that could happen i mean that just doesn't make any sense to me there's evidence here from the eyewitnesses that misty a creel put her hand over the victim's now and held her in the vehicle before this arrest also as you pointed out mr evans was perfectly aware of the circumstances of that arrest because he was arrested along with her the evidentiary hearing and state court was limited to the issue regarding the alibi witnesses because the state court judge found there that there was there was no merit to the other allegations this was the only one where there was a factual disagreement we got an alibi witnesses and that's why he limited the hearing to that issue alone i'd like to emphasize that referring to misty accruals testimonies perjury that's that of someone lies to a probation officer that can't be used to impeach them and that at that brady material shouldn't be produced i can't imagine that that could be the law and i don't believe it has i don't have a case