chinese presenting arguments to me please approach introduce yourself spell your last names for the record kelsey we normally allocate about fifteen minutes per side or argument i think it's fair to speculate we will go beyond fifteen minutes today we're not going to let that get in the way of whatever questions we have we're going to make sure everyone has the full chance to make their arguments fourteen year old christian was convicted of an attempted murder based on nothing more than michael bryant's testimony at trial testimony that was inherently unreliable untrustworthy and insufficient now i acknowledge and respect the deaf friends given the trier of fact when making the credibility and demeanor determinations yet that deference and those determinations are not conclusive and in this unusual describe from the record from the evidence we've heard it from the conversation between rios and michael bryant at the hospital to be somewhat chaotic disjointed and less than  then where will we have different circumstances but that's not what happened here to try to reduce pain he said what happened who did it and michael bryant gave a fairly detailed description of the shooter and of what happened black revolver comes out of the gangway  was thirteen miles away close to an hour by public transportation at someone else's house and that testimony was not impeached other than by michael bynes testimony about who the shooter was was not impeached or otherwise rebutted by the state in this case that is they didn't call someone to testified it is that normally it's they call someone to then say what we all may be under but  talk about the divine the good and the closure yes right but starting with him he he would say that the phone call came up at about eleven at the twins have been shot and then he and christian started other witness said sometime in the mid morning late after i made afternoon they get a phone call but the recall about it is that they get a phone call and the from call ins about the shooting of the twins and that's you know that's wh you remember that particular day that's why they remember or what happened the night before and the day open what they were doing and in fact there is evidence in the record that this sister like tia said she testified that her mother and her brother told the police that christian was there that there was an alibi so it isn't like this i would buy just came up at trial for the first time in knots that is something that the clinton people began or found out found important to someone he knows well that contradiction that devastating contradiction raises and merits reversal in this case where there is no reasonable explanation for a rider such a sea change and i want to a later changes with no reasonable i explain it's contrary to human experience if one knows the individual who just attacked your brother in that state of shock it's sort of like an excited utterance it's it's a situation where one would expect because there's credibility determinations in all of the like this isn't it a little different he was reluctant on the front end and then he came forward and the christians guilty of course i mean if if if we're if we look at this from the state's viewpoint  clearly did not identify christian an issue but human judgment goes a look at it and thought it was understandable that he might not have done that it didn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen given the state he was in given that he didn't particularly like the judge the officer questioning him given that he was more concerned with his brother and he was probably not there at that moment if he'd been just shot in the head an awful lot of boy she seemed to think that that was not a  who are we to now step in and say no you're wrong judgment goes we know better than you and your honor and not course you know the question about the reaction credibility of terminations the question of rape the state raises in its own beliefs is one that i want to address and have been trying to address i'm not asking this court to rehash that ability or demeanor determinations and and again i respect that the trier of fact is given deference with respect to those determinations but in this unusual case as this court has done reverse and given here this unusual circumstance and frankly of any of those four cases yes i know that you would compare it to but of the four each side which one do you you know that those inconsistencies weren't a second move and in that case point reversal and here similarly not only is that initial description so devastating to his such testimony because really the only issue recognize christian decently that said nothing about it each of these contradictions each of these material inconsistency is our no other reason to doubt and no rational trier of fact could have heard all of that and convicted chris and based on this single witness now the third reason with respect to sufficiency in addition to the reasons we cite in the brief but the third reason with respect to sufficiency and michael bryant's testimony relates to michael bryant's testimony about the second suspect in this case michael bryant said different things about whether there were one or two shooters and about the identity of the second shooter with respect to one hundred percent certain when he circled his fellow to look at the identification procedure he said i'd have to see a light but that's the person who i believe with the second shooter about a year later he's sitting in the state's attorney's office  makes he does not in any way attention have guts to it that is he doesn't say that at least that's not the stipulation entered into evidence doesn't say i may be mistaken i'm not sure about the names i may be confused with respect to confused and then he changes that storing and says well actually when i met with galileo i was told information about the suspect and i was told that this person had read to target the person had dreads and so i went with that testified that he was fed facts and that he took those facts and then credit to them as if they were his own observations and doesn't say until later that the detective gave him those facts that's troubling and that alone is a reason to friendly with this kid that christian and the bryan brothers were friendly no explanation for the shooting no gun found non christian where even any testimony that christian has ever seen with a gun in this case separate no way mission by christian more flight of consciousness of guilt by question that is he turns himself into the police on into an unrelated electronic monitoring aisle ation the day after inconsistent here with  yourself is there any evidence in the record that galileo had access to that in torrey belongings intake she described all these clothes before he spoke know and finally and in addition to this lack of independent or physical robber ation your honour's the alibi evidence in this case something that i've already spoken about so i won't i won't  murder scene he said he did that was a long time right right he says that i remember asking the train lady and she said it was one ten right ok it's not about the time the shooting happened well according to  he says i described a raccoon is he here that looks now an african american he didn't he didn't he admits he didn't say christian didn't say my name but he said he described a christian by description and  frayn didn't specifically say if there was only one person but he only described one person coming up from the game way which sounds a lot to me like the second shooter if there's a second shooter with a description so in the light streamed to the state eleven forty your witness entirely clear where it comes to the identification if the identification testimony is now clear then that favors chris should because of course the burden is on the state beyond a reasonable doubt that lack of clarity here  and one thirty eight of the record and now only recently read this your honor but the question was asked for clarification purposes detective michael brining in your described only one offender to answer yes and trying to because that the cross examination questions related to the fact that she didn't go tell the police about this that's part of the argument so that is in response now to the state's argument your honour's for all the reasons that i have i have said and i have argued and that's in our briefs this case rests entirely on the credibility of michael bryant and this