it's a recording device with half the trial that raises the question about this witness that was presented at the evidentiary hearing and as i recall reading that very same individual was to be a think we should not get him before the jury as well i think the jury needs to hear not just the state's witnesses they need to hear the fact that there was this other witness to the crime someone else that's going to say no it wasn't  here's why i can tell you that i was in gage in a physical struggle with him at the time the gunshots went on and he will be able to tell the jury a completely different version of events and jury should be the ones to hear both sides of the situation and decide for themselves who to believe because you know he was being selfish he wanted his own post conviction petition defense really explains why he didn't want to go it doesn't necessarily play to release i don't see how it explains the statement that was a lie because he thought that teacher he gave him her business card he thought she was going to help him with his post convention petition well i just think he is nothing to gain by helping anthony english why would he want to testify for him but once you have this impeachment new trial a completely new trial and you would have to argue to us it seems to me the problems testimony without regard to whether it's been impeached or not will be so conclusive that will change the result somebody coming out of the woodwork ten years afterwards with no criminal history and no incarceration in his or her background says i so i was there and this is what really happened right it is different he does h that's exactly what i my argument in history and to finish what i was saying about the state's witnesses is that in addition to their prior convictions they both never came and in the remainder to know if they had credibility issues with those witnesses there were issues there that he got only six years on this armed robbery after he you know testified about this and also like to point out one other fact about what a new trial looked like  one of the the fact that the state presented was that the gun was the same in this case as was in the other case and we have a witness the that the english that that that when this was also just fall and he's saying that he didn't he's also recant thing in his affidavit that that he saw him shoot scar so that connection of the gun also is another piece of evidence that would be in a trial so not only do we have the new witness to counteract these two it witnesses that had credibility issues but inform the trial judge what standard he should apply in deciding the case and counsel for the defendant would have certainly i'm told the trial judge that you know you have to place yourself in the shoes of a reasonable juror and decide whether this happened instead you just heard with it would it change the verdict that the letter that the jury reached and so i don't understand why you why you would you say that the trial judge may have while using that with the term i find mr brown not to be credible is somehow get high with the standard that he should have a night the judge went ahead and ruled out even hearing the state's argument the judge in the road to him frequently talking about oh well brown has baggage and this and that so it almost seems as though he may have already had his ruling in mind before he even heard his briefing here that day the defendant has a hard time a test into the credibility of these witnesses because he can't rely on the credibility of these witnesses he is asking this court to find at the post conviction or could not make a credibility determination credibility terminations looked at the various regarding the newly discovered evidence and based its decision on the cumulative ness factor in that case the court or cheese or it said quote the fact finder will be charged with terminating the credibility the witnesses in light of the newly discovered evidence that was based on the fact that his conviction or in that case did not make the credibility determination it does not say in archie's at the postcondition or at a third stage of you cannot make potential defense witness at trial that's correct that suggests that he was someone that the defendant was going to rely on to present the exculpatory evidence right so it's not  what every event occurred after that shouldn't undermine the defendant's position that mr brown was going to help if he would he was a potential witness for the defense he would he did not appear he was was he wherever he went he failed to appear but he talked to the police and then he also talked to the state's attorneys in this case and then he admitted when he and there was a stipulation introduced that when he and when he talked to the state's attorney he admitted to them that he lied to the police when you talk to them it's unclear what he actually said to the police that's not that's not part of the record also if you look at the the audio offer proof submitted by the public defender in this case he said that brown would testify that he was there and that hole was the one who was was also there he could not identify the shooter but he also said in that offer proof that the defendant wasn't there and he also said that he would say he would look at the the lineup identification photo which include that the defendant and he would testify that none of the people that were in that photo lineup were at the scene now ten years later he comes back and says  i happen to be fighting with the defendant at the time you also have to question his credibility in this case when he admitted that when he was interviewed by the assistant state's attorney and the investigator in this case that he told them he made this affidavit up because he at the state because of his own pending post conviction petition he admitted that he wrote on the bottom of the affidavit during that interview quote this statement is not true i don't want to be involved i was upset about my case and this affidavit because of his own pending post conviction petition you also have to look at the credibility of charge all there were cancer we can't testimony has been found to be highly unreliable his code billet is questionable since he was year sentence for his involvement in another first degree murder case at the time that he submitted this affidavit at the hearing call admitted that he told the assistant state's attorney and the investigator his friend sidney a fellow gang member gave him the affidavit to sign he would do anything for his friend sidney and he signed it without even looking at the affidavit he admitted that he wrote on the bottom of his affidavit mr p d you and your client are trying to feed me to the yet require my help sorry i'm not interested in anything you have to say i don't remember reading this until three eighteen zero nine this is not true he also noted that in his affidavit just because she may she made the point that bed obviously they would have recognized who was there because they were he was a friend and he was a family i'm just real quickly regarding this the standard again we're not saying that the judge shouldn't be looking at the at the perspective of what the new jury and a new trial would decide and that's the standard at third stage hearing what what is there a reasonable probability that history in a trial would lead to so that's why i keep going there because that that's because he needs to be