sorry for the delay i got a lot of my best time call in sick for work force because i've just been sick last few days and the delay this morning was entirely my fault and being a plaintiff's lawyer in my practice i know how to blame people some of the please the court mr aris hardaway appears before this court today to ask for a relatively limited form of relief he's asking for the opportunity to take evidence on his post conviction pleadings because this post conviction i'm certainly not here to argue that this had been disclosed it would result in acquittal i'm not here to challenge the sufficiency of the state's evidence to sustain a guilty verdict but at this stage of the pleadings there is an absolute substantial showing that non the so nondisclosure possibly could be taking the right to put to undermine confidence in the jury verdict and in terms of the potential procedure in this case and the standard is even lower than that the senate is is there any reasonable likelihood that there was so much testimony about his involvement including his own statement and called him guilty and the fact that you know i'm claiming that he had some kind of an alibi for his mom his mom never bail him out on that how do you get past state's i'm clear this up this out to be a credibility contest because the jury was charged with having to choose between the prior statements that isn't called a toy and in court testimony that he did not commit this crime and the state of the jury to disregard the in court testimony and rely on that prior statement by having doris be the one to guide them to that former statement it in the closing arguments by the state but in the opening closing argument the second chair prosecutor he first bolstered gross's credibility by saying this is her finest hour she has the courage to to be here and then he would rock the jury prior incorporating statement and it was also the theme of his closing argument is that  testified to so the state in no uncertain terms made this a credibility contest and in that sense there's absolutely a reasonable likelihood that the state relied upon what could be joyce's false testimony and reaching a verdict i think the cause for concern here is that the jury may have deliberated without hearing all the evidence in this case and the jury may have deliberated and come to a verdict considering false testimony that may have been facilitated which  any any worse here such as this one where everything is possible but it's not proven anything heard and it's almost as though you're going to i think that it right is for those reasons that i do want to stress this quote that it is a relatively limited form of relief i mean these pleadings do show that perhaps something suspicious is going on and it is possible that if we have an evidentiary hearing in this that it's after never ventured think that we're going to get a full spread of the record and then i think we can but i think we might be struggling with something a little bit different if we assume that there was something  a bit of a deal to get her to come into court and testify that without the words jumpsuit that she would your let's assume that that is correct that the next question is how was there you know material how would they have you know made a difference in light of all the evidence in the case that it would have made a difference because that the state was so adamant at trial before the jury to use doris to come to their conclusion and finding mr hardaway bias motive or interest in being here like him referring to mr hardaway and he said she's the only one with motive bias or interest and i think the concern here is that as a rider of the arguments made by the state  trial would be severely undermined if not for a closed if either one doris had been incarcerated during the trial where it had been disclosed that she actually received her freedom in consideration of her testimony also i think that if this had been disclosed it would strongly bolster the defense's theory of the case that doris is not your typical written a story says not a disinterested bystander who happened to see a crime and turn to the police and say i think i know who did this doris participated in this crime it's of course her testimony that she was forced to but the defense of the case is the voice is the type of witness who would look to to curry favor with the state she is a crack cocaine addict she is a he had the victim's cash on him he was actually linked to the gun that committed the murder by way of a prior burglary and in that case the state's witness who provided a motive for that crime he actually testified that one of his charges was dropped in consideration of his testimony in that apparent that there had to be at least an evidentiary hearing so we can get some sort of final resolution as to whether there was a brady violation and in this case as you noted we don't know the  be different i think the impeachment that came out in this case roy was general i went to her general background and it was a link to her testimony directly in this case i think that the tenor of the cross examination would be the only reason you're here today is because you were given your freedom the only reason that you're out and employed and rehabilitated is because you're here today testifying against my client so i think confidence is undermined in that in the sense that there is no must have been such a model prisoner that she is worthy of a sentence or duction so in terms of the idea that the jury might have deliberated over false testimony at least at this pleading said i think there's there was some reasonable likelihood that the jury failed to make that substantial showing here his claim is nothing more than that a claim not only is it not supported it isn't it is entirely rebutted by the record it came out on direct examination the circumstances surrounding d and on cross examination by codefendant right she explicitly denied that there was a deal and this is supported by her cooperation from the very beginning of this case this murder occurred on october twenty first hundred six on october twenty sixth she was already participating with the police this is well before she was ever arrested for retail theft she was participating by meeting with the text of long street and identifying codefendant right in a photo array she then went to area two but the text of long street and i don't know if i'd codefendant right in a physical line up she then again went out in a surveillance fan with detective bradley and she codefendant daniels she continued to cooperate with the police by identifying this defendant from a photo array at area two and then she went back again the next day to area two to identify defendant in a lineup so to say that the only reason that she was testifying was to curry some sort of favor with the state is disingenuous where the record is clear that she was cooperating with the police and with the state from the very beginning before she was inference that something transpired by the fact that the judge alone goes a well i mean this judge by the way i call my hammer he's not one that changes his mind but you are yes it was the circumstances surrounding the plea deal were unusual but it was also unusual for doris to be sentenced not just the maximum term but an extended term sentence the very first time she was sentenced to imprisonment in the idea of see that did not take into account her background it did not take into account the nature of her the crimes that she was charged with it did not take into account her history of drug and alcohol abuse and it did not take into account the fact that since she had been initially arrested she was participating in a substance abuse program through gateway bass she was in prison and all of these things are things that her defense counsel brought out in the motion  point doris had been in jail for about six months and she was a witness in an upcoming trial if it's not a stretch of the imagination to imagine that the state's turny did want to talk to one of his witness to proper for trial not to offer a deal but again that it's defendants burden to show why the case was passed and he added he expects you to rely on an inference from what he speculates may have happened and that just is not enough sustain the burden required to proceed to proceed to a third stage and again justice moran was not only deal but he was the judge on the murder trial if there was a deal in place and doris lied about it and the state's attorney was complicit for not correcting her testimony judgment wayne was complicit for not correcting her testimony because he certainly would have known whether there was a deal in place there wasn't it on the record at the recent thing hearing they've after they passed it the judge said well the state's attorney is not here i'm not aware if there's a deal or not and defense attorney said i'm not aware if he was in jail but there was a mix up and then the same day that he testified he was released from prison with a new sentencing order that took away one hundred sixty hours of probation this court said that that was not enough to make a substantial showing that there had been a deal and they relied heavily on the fact that that witness again like tourists had participated well before he was arrested and that the sentence was not a lawful it was a sentence was not unlawful it is wrong with the statutory range for retail theft crime was proper was appropriate and just because the circumstances were unusual doesn't make them on toward further defendant attempts to ignore the substantial showing of a brady three statement it's enough to convict him he was charged with home invasion which he was convicted of felony murder based on home invasion which he was convicted of and the jury was also instructed on an accountability theory his inculpatory statement is more than enough to support that he told the state's attorney that they were going to be wrong then he testified that they used doors to get access into the apartment  they rushed up stairs and then he defendant yelled you know get him get drawn because they were there to beat him that's home invasion that's felony murder based on home invasion even if defendant even if you only take the seat with their now defendant does disavow his statement but any time a defendant pleads not guilty there are centrally disavowing any a couple three statements that they made this wasn't just he said she said doris against defendants who said that she did not happen concoct a statement that he did not say that he had been home with this mother but he did not say that he was attempting to get back at codefendant right because right had beat his girlfriend he he  say well as he said that defendant had never seen statement that she hadn't he hadn't even seen daniel statement and in danial statement there is nothing about buddha in defendant's statement he said that bhutto ordered the hit the reason they were going over is because order to hit on pran the trial he tried to say that he didn't know who bhutto was but officer diwan testified that he had mentioned when he was first arrested that he daniel statement that said that hardaway had the gun and he was also impeached where he stated that he ran away as soon as shots were fired daniel statement said the defendant yelled head shots and then was the trigger man  coleman and again those rely on more than this he does not cite a single case that is moves to the third stage of an issue hearing based on such scant evidence as he has provided in all ensure there was an affidavit by the witnesses attorney that stated that there had in fact been a deal there was also a report from the illinois department of law that stated that they discussed it with the with the bridge mrs attorney and the attorney had said the witness would cooperate for it in exchange for a multi  clear that there were there's never going to be a requirement at second stage to provide affidavits from an adverse witness the state is essential given that mr hardaway has to get an affidavit from his own prosecutor that he has to get an affidavit from the state's own witness who testified against him there's absolutely no requirement and that's not enough to distinguish those cases from this case that from this case especially where the evidence and those cases is seemingly a lot stronger than in the state's evidence in this evidentiary hand to get that on the record it is possible that there will be no impropriety here but these pleadings at this point raise a substantial concern that the state gave their state's witness her freedom in exchange for her testimony in that thurman case not only didn't support his allegation of perjury they actually buttress the truth of the trial testimony in that case the state's witness testified that he didn't get any consideration and the pleadings showed that he  had pled guilty to or six days of time served and some community service it turned out he'd actually serve seven days and so the judge dropped the community service requirement and also in thurmond there were two eyewitnesses to the murder and the defendant actually admitted to owning the gun that that was used in the murders and in truth a of the evidence in this case the state is still relying on the wrong standard i mean that the argument that without joyce's testimony there would have been enough evidence to convict him anyway is simply not the standard and to say well this was not a he said she said that flies in the face of the state's stance at trial when they were pushing this theory on the jury that doris is the one you can trust and that this point is please don't show that doris necessarily had a deal the moment she began working with the police but i don't think it's going to make her later deal immaterial and it's not going to make the bigger it immaterial because doris is not this typical witness who is just interested bystander as i miss i think it would it would survive it would be it would be a sort of defense's case if they can show that doris is the type of witness rip the deal that you're talking about but the benefit that the state gets according to your theory here is that she point based on this putting is that is what i'm writing but i'm also writing that we just don't know the full extent of the brady violation i don't think it's i think would be a reasonable inference that as the state is building the their case around us has credibility from the time that she first goes to the prius and i do want to note i should go directly to the place it was three days later and she didn't even identify my client and so two weeks after that but from that point until she picks up the new charge the state is building the case toronto credibility and when she puts up a new charge  that provides leverage for her to get a deal i think the facts of the case and the facts of joyce's character lends a lot of credence to the possibility that the state did not want to have their star witness as a prisoner and again it would bolster the defense's theory of the case but doris isn't somebody that the jury should rely upon if they're if they're charged with having to choose between two statements for those reasons and i would ask that this court of amanda cause for third stage proceedings under the postcondition hearing after