establishes that it was john walker's decision alone to carry a gun that night in fact christian had no idea that johnny was carrying a gun well you say the evidence establishes but that would assume though that johnnie walker in fact was telling the truth and of course th found otherwise so i guess i don't see why the case doesn't and right there unless you're going to argue that somehow the district court's credibility determination is clearly erroneous that seems like a real steep climb here especially especially given the determination is subject to any kind of deference and as the court noted in house people it has to be a holistic determination in reviewing all of the evidence and in this particular case i think the most glaring error that the lower court made remainder that this court issued in ordering the district court to give an evidentiary hearing this court instructed the lower court that there are to some indications of reliability namely that johnnie walker had come forward before he'd even been tried and in this particular instance the district court does not consider that at all and in fact it makes a determination that johnny it finds that i never find that there was a letter there was never an affidavit but that's clearly b the lector the record clearly that's established as in determines that not only did christian's attorney know that johnnie intended to offer exculpatory evidence in christian's favor that johnny's own attorneys agreed with that interpretation and that representation and all of that came out before johnnie was went to trial and the district court makes no acknowledgement of that or considers it in any basis and his findings that johnny's statements weren't reliable instead he holds it against johnny that letter was never produced that alone give the district more grounds for saying you know what i watched this person testify i deserve their demeanor all the other signals and i just don't buy the guy's story notwithstanding the fact that maybe he had volunteered early on to testify for is that his and yes your honor it's true that there was testimony of the trial that there were two additional shots heard no one indicated that they saw those shots being heard everyone was running from the scene johnnie didn't say one way or the other he didn't testify that he didn't make those additional two shots he testified that his interpretation or that his version of events and how david demas was shot was consistent with how do you deem as testified in addition to that the there was no testimony offered at the trial on behalf of the state that ever there were any of or excuse me there ever any other bullets found at the scene there's no really additional information to pursue you know to prove or deny whether or not those two shots were fired and certainly that's something that the jury would be able to consider here but i think that the district court's primary its main reason was i don't believe that johnnie ever came forward and that evidence is simply not supported by the record there was other indications here where the district court also doesn't believe that  johnnie presented this one thousand nine hundred seven letter or affidavit and attributed it to saying that mr lake's that he prepared the letter mr lake never said that he prepared the one nine hundred ninety seven affidavit of the two thousand and two determination that this report got that wrong and johnny here has has presented are christian excuse me his present evidence that johnny was the shooter and that it was johnny's entire plan to go forward and under house me bell it's not whether or not the evidence is admissible it's not whether or not the  jury it's not whether or not it's admissible at this point it has to be a holistic term a nation that if this evidence was presented to the jury would they have found christian not to be guilty and in this case that is what we have certainly there could be questioning in front of the jury as to whether or not there were two additional bullets and i think that counsel could ask well why weren't those ever recovered at the police even you know kind of just search the scene but in this particular instance there was no evidence presented at all that johnny was the shooter and if you're wrong about that because i think you are actually if you're wrong about that do you concede that you're not able to overcome that kind of deference given i don't given that the the biggest indicator of reliability here was that johnn presented this information before he went to trial and the district court refuses to acknowledge or consider that in any instance in its order and i think that certainly that and you know one of the things that house says is that it's not that this doesn't turn on small discrepancies in the record and it doesn't you know that the determination of whether or not this evidence is available and should be presented to the jury doesn't present on these these these small differences these factual determinations about what you know factual this because i have course was on the first panel and what you're telling me it seems like is that we screwed up because what we should have done is just determined as a matter of law that johnny walker was credible enough to open the gateway right and that was not i can just tell you that was not my thinking first around my thinking was the district court had aired because it basically said i think we had a line of cases that said even if you're presented with affidavit sort of like you can just say  you know this is inherently inherently reliable i don't even need to hear or see this person testify to know that they're not telling the truth all we said was there's no way you can make that kind of determination on this record precisely because there was evidence that he come forward first so of course  report you're going to need to bring these people in make some credibility assessment and then tell us whether the gateway opens and it seems like that's what the district were did here you obviously disagree with the credibility of termination but once that's made i don't really know what more we're supposed to do well i think in in this particular instance your honor i don't disagree that we should have had a hearing and i think we did have a hearing here i think what's the purpose of the hearing because all you're saying is that the district court on on this record could not make an adverse determination because there was evidence that he had come forward first but we already knew that that's exactly why you got the hearing in the first place you know you are i'm not suggesting that the credibility of her nation the district court is never relevant here i think in house the court very clearly indicated that it is certainly a something that the court needs to consider they said the same thing in the quicken in our argument here though however is that at the evidentiary hearing the court is required to make a probabilistic determination of all of the evidence the record and he didn't do that here he did not consider all of the evidence in the record and making a credibility determination and that is what has to be considered it's not the ultimate the district court's decision on whether or not this evidence is admissible or evan or whether or not you know the likely impact or if he only the likely impact the evidence but it's not to make an independent factual determination about what likely occurred and that's what we're arguing he did here it's a a small distinction but i think it is one here where the district court innocence all the way through his trial and therefore that bore that would bear on the consideration of other be more likely than not that a jury would convict sir your honor i'm sorry how do you deal with that in this particular instance johnny didn't maintain his innocence all the way through out at the very beginning even his own lawyers admit that johnnie was going to present evidence in christian's favor that if he presented the evidence it would be more likely than not that christian would not not so it christian at johnny's trial johnnie did not testify right entitle to present a defense and johnnie statement ultimately in the p s i report that i didn't commit this offense if you read the next section he also says but i wasn't found guilty of attempt at least  something that's consistent with what he's been saying all along in our case it's consistent with what he said in two thousand and two and two thousand and fourteen i believe the hearing was that he johnny thought this was an this was an accident he didn't mean to shoot david davis he certainly meant to scare him he admitted that he certainly meant to lure him to a place where he was not going to be safe he admitted that but he never meant to shoot him and so in johnny's morrow there wasn't his defense of trial as we know but those are his attorney's words and not his own and certainly the a guidelines and precedent from this court and from the united states supreme court have said that certain tactics taken at trial are the attorney's provision alone and those were those you know those arguments the arguments that were made during  johnny's closing arguments were statements made by the jury also i would know that in the opening statements the state conceded that johnnie proceeded on the theory that this was an accident so it is consistent throughout the trial that johnnie was proceeding on the idea that this was an accident from the state please the court heidi stern on behalf of respondents of pelleas in this case christian walker is seeking an extraordinary remedy that is rarely met as this court has previously noted in this case with even with the new evidence presented christian cannot show that every single juror's mind would have been changed given the testimony of johnnie walker at trial in combination with everything else and that is the standard that he has to meet so with that i'd like to move on to an issue that was discussed previously which is the credibility determinations made by the district court the whole purpose of the district court having the evidentiary hearing was to determine that credibility something that this court is unable to do the district court is the one who observed these witnesses and listened to their testimony and i would note for the record that jones  taylor from this court does state that credibility determinations are reviewed for clear air house versus bell also it does not it does not set a clear standard but it says district courts must be allowed to make credibility determinations and larsen b soto says that if the district court applies the correct standard which is that you can't change every juror's mind that the credibility determination should be left alone by this court so from our perspective credibility from the district court and its determination that johnny and your old were not credible should end the matter there but the district court did continue and also made a determination of  liability the problem with christians case with regard to liability is once you do consider actually all the evidence johnnie walker's testimony is irr inconsistent the only way that christian can prevail in this case to convince every every juror to find him not guilty is by completely disregarding all of the inconsistent statements that johnnie walker made over time and those are laid out in our brief so unless the court wants me to i won't go into detail but he certainly contradicted himself numerous times at his sentencing and thereafter with regard  to see johnny's plan that was mentioned by counsel at the evidentiary hearing and johnny actually said that going to demas in the first place was a coincidence well that directly contradicts the fact that he had a plan that he put into his affidavit so that's just one example of him being unreliable and in addition to that had johnnie testified so let's say if this court disagrees that all of this testimony was unreliable and and look at the fact that if johnnie had testified what would have happened he would have been impeached with his prior inconsistent statements as well as prior convictions and at the evidence cherry hearing trial counsel testified to that as well so given all of the evidence here there there would be at least one juror in this case who would find christian walker guilty of attempted murder and unless this court has further questions i will leave it at that well i guess i don't think it's quite as open and shut as you present it because it strikes me that just from the get go this case seemed awfully odd as one against christian because tell me if i'm remembering the facts right he first tried to get his mother involved but going in confronting the whole thing is a little bit more extensive than that  i just remember he did get hit by rather go and confront the ultimate victim then he called the police so the police and and after all that he's going to enlist his cousin to go and shoot and attempt to kill this person that just seems like a really odd crime so that's why  me johnny walker's testimony has a ring of truth to it notwithstanding the inconsistency i can see that your honor and what you're laying out with with your recollection is basically the evidence of christian walker's specific intent that was presented at his trial he was so obsessed with this necklace that he went back to demas house no fewer than three times it's a little unclear it might have even been four times  to confront him about this and sort of vaguely threaten him at various points and so the jury hearing you know most of the testimony as trial word that was this group of friends all of whom had observed christian at different points during the day and the jury hearing all that evidence built up about how he was talking about it all day about how he went back to demas all the things he said to be a mess and then culminating in all the sudden johnny shows up you know i a very christian centered trial also anjani shows up he's packing a gun they lure i think the jury could easily see this as a luring demas across the street they i guess what i'm trying to say is with all of that evidence christian was the center of this and i agree when you look at his case compared to johnny's case it seems strange that johnny wasn't also if he did of attempted murder it's well known and ok i'm saying it doesn't make any sense for the person in christian shoes after doing all that he did before the crime to have been the one to plant the idea if it were not quite the idea but to come up with the idea and list johnny's assistance to go and murder this person it just seems completely inconsistent with what general human i mean no maybe you should think christians it's not but that is not the way a typical person who wants to murder someone goes about conducting their business before and that's all i'm s ok yeah i can't really speak to that i just know that the sort of trail of evidence that christians trial certainly placed him at the center and so they did so circumstantial isn't it is certain to me there's no direct evidence of any conspiracy to how likely the jury would be to convict and so forth because to me i mean you can you can leave the mother out of it or they repeated attempts but when when question goes to the police and report stolen property it just seems unlikely that he would say ok now that i've reported it to the police let's go part of this guy i don't know the police responded to be honest that was unclear to me from the record as to whether that actually became an incident you know that they discovered this incident with the d m s as part of their investigation of the murder of the marine mcconnell i don't know if i'm pronouncing that correct but that that was a later murder committed by johnny and christian both of whom were convicted of that so i don't know that the police became involved and although i'm not saying i think they probably didn't become involved but it's a little i'm just go to the police and say ok well let's let's just and i know now that if a stylish motive i will point out that it was his mother's idea her threat was to go to the police so maybe maybe that makes a difference i really can't explain rebuttal just very briefly i just wanted to correct something in the record johnny has never testified or stated that he had a plan to go and were demas the evidence and testimony has always been consistent that they were walking down the street and it was a quince a dental reaching in fact there was testimony i believe in johnny's trial about whether or not they asked mr bemis you know what did you plan to meet up did it seem like they were waiting for you and he said no we're standing out there and they came by and we started talking but the jury heard all of this and then  verdict the jury has never heard though that christian had no intent he had no knowledge that once they did see demas johnny said i didn't like his attitude i thought he knew more than he was letting on i decided then and there to scare him to get this information and i just think it's worth reading something from house the bell and house people there was an evidentiary hearing at which the district court had a hearing listen to testimony and ultimately found that several of the witnesses statements were not credible and  bell that what the united states presuppose court said was here although the district court tentatively managed complex proceedings carefully reviewed the extensive record and to certain conclusions about the evidence the court didn't apply the predictive standard and etc etc we further are uncertain about the basis for some of the district courts conclusions a consideration that weakens our reliance on its determinations and ultimately the district or the united states supreme court concluded that even though the district court how this hearing made careful review of the record heard the testimony and ultimately found that several of the witnesses statements were not reliable because they've been out off for ten years after the fact the supreme court ultimately concluded that those those findings were not supported by the record and ultimately ordered that mr house be given a neutral or at least reminded for a consideration of his underlying merits claims that is what we are arguing here that this is what happened there was evidence presented in this record under a probabilistic holistic determination of all of the evidence that was that is now before this