present either to support i did so on the basis for a new trial but consider together they provide even stronger support for their proposition i'd like to talk about them in ter he initially had gone to trial simultaneously with the defendant's trial they were held in separate courtrooms but the travels around going same time mr lewis this trial ended in a hung jury and a few days thereafter he entered in the planning wasn't involved in the participation didn't participate in the offense wasn't there it's not the kind of cheese where a codefendant might come forward and say well defendant was there but he didn't know what i was going to do or you know a drug case where the co defendants as well with the defendant was there he was with me but they were all my drugs on this is the kind of case where this codefendant is coming forward saying he wasn't there he wasn't involved he didn't plan th so i think it's different from the pieces where the friend of mine now that there is an available source of the seventh and who it is if the defendant didn't do this wasn't present wasn't involved in the planning then we can infer that she would have known that lewis did and that louis wasn't available source up that happens but what worked you know louis waited several years two years after her guilty two years after he trucker say he doesn't believe he didn't believe the lewis was credible that he had insist on the trial court cited to the fact he was due to be released from prison soon which i again i think it is questionable in light of the fact that this witness had come for same position that we are in looking at the credibility of bill's witnesses now we have a judge heard live testimony from lewis and from san tad on but he did not this is not the judge who heard the live testimony at the trial of the significant credibility problems stephen klingle really is the state's key witness comes forward on the day he set to go to trial on his own felony charges he's facing fourteen years of imprisonment rather than show up at the courthouse i mean this is not the stage where we have to find that this defendant was in fact actually innocent and i think there's language from all said and again i normally say it is distinguishable but the principles of hockey you know that of course in most of the court said of course this doesn't mean he's innocent merely that all the facts in surrounding circumstances including the testimony of the new witness should be scrutinized more closely to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant so we do look to what was presented  a new trial based on a claim of actual innocence it happens it can happen and i submit this is the sort of case where it should happen because if lewis is coming forward and what he's saying is true this defendant is actually innocent i mean it is es in terms of you know what they saw some witnesses brought forth evidence you know that would tend to suggest lewis was involved but the defense didn't put any of that kind of evidence i'm on even kind of the same way since the claim about the trial testified at the post conviction hearing he said well having heard what she has to say i think she could have made a difference with regard to the alibi witness so whether or not that was a good strategic decision or it was an actual well informed i guess what i'm saying a well informed strategic decision i think is questionable but also it can be extremely if it was a strategic decision that reasonable you know representation would have undertaken then you know th know whether she talked to directly to the defense attorneys or not prior to trial not as to whether or not the defendant was actually with her that morning there was no wavering on that point so my time to go is that you will have  they are not and i simply brought up the good testimony because part of the argument that i thought i heard was that you know he will testify also with regards to the alibi witnesses that neither one of them were credible neither one of them were credible now without afford me to hear a point argument ok no jurisdiction because that was not part of the remain and let me suggest the the fundamental fundamental problem with point in testimony is twofold one doing the morning of january fifteenth the morning of the murder he told police he sleeping in bed he slept in that morning til noon or thereabouts so we weight of the evidence songs were things that were before the jury and were not before the court raising a reasonable doubt argument is not that standard was the evidence sufficient to convict at the time the the standard again to the question is in light of  interviewed by police about where she was that morning the morning of january fifteenth nice of the friend said he slept in actually what the defendant said is he usually sleeps till noon it doesn't necessarily mean that every single day that was what he was saying he slept till noon on nap day when he said it said nine thirty two in the report of proceedings officer crowley testified that what the defendant told him was that he usually sleeps until noon maybe he also did not recall the events of that day because at the time it didn't tell the police anything at that time and they waited until there was money to be happy and again to be had in terms of the deal for stephen klingle to come forward with the story again i would ask the court to look at i know it's not exactly similar but the principles there should guide the decision in this case this new evidence is significant it goes directly to the defendant's actual innocence it is total vindication it is evidence in the form of t