court sitting on bank recently stated our criminal justice system depends on the integrity of the attorneys to present their cases to the jury when even a single conviction is obtained through perjurious or deceptive means the happened at trial was that the prosecutor when this issue was raised said there is no deal he called bryan langford's defense attorney i and the fact that there was an immunity agreement that was different from that and the prosecutor in closing arguments said to the jury the immunity agreement was really not all that much brian it's already been convicted the immunity agreement only applies to idaho county we didn't have to get on the west witness stand he stressed to the jury that there was no binding agreement there was no nothing no told that the witness had transactional immunity for everything that happened in related to the murder what they weren't told and what this court reversed on was the fact that he was going to get the witness was going to get some subject to question or whatever it's very different to say to a witness do you believe this is going to happen or we know that the prosecutor has offered you this we need to have what the it and that difference is very important also the significance of brian's testimony is is very important mr alberts testified and it's the prosecutor testified subsequently that he was worried that without prying lang brian might have said differently in a few statements but it doesn't go to the heart of the case which is that the way in which brian testified that the killings occurred did not happen that way that any never asks the critical question he knows beforehand that brian has admitted to mark and mark has told its mars that brian committed this with a rock and that our fight forensic have gotten these questions in he got questions in about us about it limor about a shotgun but a shotgun just don't nothing was focused on the fact that brian was lying about the critical testimony is it is on trial now it's testament well his testimony is on trial had been yes it was a small club at his trial he stated that it was just he had never seen it before right and in fact he had testified he had given the statement as a as a nice pic it turned into a different form of club and also that they have and it was that this from our pathologist was that maybe it's possible  that the that this club could have caused this damage but it would have had to been a horrendous force and there's no evidence of that brian is saying this knocks them on the head in addition in addition at the sentencing and at the motions for a new trial the for is it well first of all the burden is not on the defendant to show that that that brian is lying we have to raise reasonable doubt to trial and so using a forensic pathologist to go specifically to the cause of death necessarily dependent on mark testifying but of course when fitzmaurice asked about why mark didn't testify his responses well when he stood up and cross examined for a five or six pages and asked why and we got out through that the idea that mark wasn't there if you can read those four or five pages there is nothing there that suggests that mark was not present at the time so i think that this group does it really is critical in terms for just speculating is that for a few words about what a witness might or might not have said if for the prosecution if if they knew what the defense was going to say the prosecutor's story because they put these bodies into the van and drove on a back road for thirty minutes thirty miles at least an hour and that you shouldn't believe brian about that because what about brian's statement that he didn't know never when i say i've seen up at where they where the bodies were found brian did not articulate that he said i didn't hear any movement i didn't see anything all i know is that i i thought maybe they were alive but i had nothing to base to base that on he also testified that there was no blood and yet there was blood found in the then so bryant there were a lot a lot of things that that that are inconsistent with brian's testimony in this case claim but it was part of the claim that's what they raised in response that said the only way to get the story in front wasn't bring mark on well if that is their argument yes that once you have that information you sit down and what trial coun do is to basically assess where they should go with the case what do we have to do and there was very little risk in mark testified he gave the same story and version of what happened to the probe presents investigator that it did but it did not have any connection to the can they were unable to connect that at all forensically so that nightstick was not it and in fact that's one of the issues in here is that when brian initially says oh it's a nice that mark perry and i never saw that march trial he says it's a small club that was mine that i gave to mark and i don't know where it is now though the actual murder weapon was not in front of the jury so you're experts except for one little handwriting expert was given opportunities to do that asked for funds never got them and as a result we have the trial which is really based soley on brian's bryant's was mark where was mark what's going on we know there's no challenge to brian story other than a few minor inconsistency is and that's where the field really comes i come back to the deal because i  brian's credibility and i didn't put mark on the stand because because initially i just didn't i didn't think i needed him i her and more importantly went after he ten after he cross just brother for a few minutes that got out to the jury mark's defense so i didn't need to do that only way down the road did he also the sal is a little bit concerned about mark's testimony in front of them in front of the jury but that's not the t and there's no question that he that he questioned bryant's credibility but it was not a very very limited basis and it was only about the questions of where the hits were with the nightstick not in the fact that he knew beforehand this is not made made a decision beforehand not to call mark i mean there's no opening statements saying you know i can hear from mark there's no there's really saying hey this decision was made and it's my decision the jury was repeatedly told by brian that he believed he had a plea agreement when brian first took the stand and there was an objection is testifying by mr fitzmorris and it was primarily based upon the immunity agreement and as a result of the jury the prosecutor said we don't have an agreement bryant's attorney testified it was outside the presence of the jury bryant's attorney long said we don't have an agreement but bryant repeatedly stated and went to trial and he was going to get a significantly lesser sentence than that for that event he went to trial but the trial court says gentleman we've got a problem here because this guy thinks he's got an agreement and that was well brian you understand that even if you've got an agreement the judge is the one that ultimately decides the penalty in this case and that was the prosecutor's only response to prosecute call another witness and say there's no agreement the prosecutor could have called bryant's attorney mr long peak and said we don't have an agreement julie the prosecutor didn't do that the only information that the jury had was from brian who believed he had an agreement and that was exploited by penalty testifying only i've signaled clearly enough in the earlier part of the argument with the guilt phase contention that mr bismarck was ineffective just to get it out and sort of how i'm thinking it seems to me pretty i'm brian changed the stories more times about the number of times that mark struck these two individuals the problem with that is the doctor side testified there was nothing to the back it was on the face minimum that it was possible it was just require extraordinary force to have occurred and you agree with you given this department that that that the nightstick was found in the in the camaro was not introduced and that the that any other  small stick was also not introduced that is absolutely correct your honor there was no filter and all we have then from brian is his testimony that there was a stick that he might or might myers may or may not have gotten from his ex wife that he may or may not have given to mark that decision not to retain an expert was reasonable is it something that i would would have done i've never practiced criminal law for it yes i don't know if that answers your question  think that's what i would say i don't have a criminal defense background but from my own experience ah i know how how tough capital cases are to defend them prosecute i know what's at stake i've been doing it for a number of years i there not the question i think there were there were there were pretty face years is is there no reasonable defense for that mark well that's a reasonable defense and that was the defense that was presented and that is that brian story is just is going to be a terrible witness and that was pretty well exhibited by a couple of things not only do we have that smarts testimony that he would have been a terrible witness with no credibility but we as i recall fitzmaurice testimony at the evidence or here and he knew that mark had an explosive temper it was i would submit that he was terrified of mark being cross examined and mark having yet another eruption in front of the jury so that the jury would not have to judge bryant's credibility i recognized that it is probably improper to submit an instruction that is contrary to state law and there's no question twenty four  but he wanted to use that instruction so that he could argue in front of the jury how do you judge brian's credibility so i can't conceive the performance based on that i'm not i don't know that it was a good strategy but it was certainly one that he considered fifteen was given before number eighteen and there was another one that was given that was that that was correct the problem that i have with instruction fifteen is that if you  thousand and twenty and i think maybe i'm going to difference that set of numbers here i'm showing sixteen nineteen and twenty you're referring to fifteen eighteen and the three ninety four your honor is the bad instruction three ninety opposed to the actual instruction given it is your honor and i quote i think i can explain that in my brief i am referring to the instructions actually given not the request instructions i'm sorry i think it's important also that the very next instruction your state now concedes that there is no case without brian there's no case against mark without brian that's the first time that's been conceded and i think that's very important it's very important as to the accomplice instruction because basically  the improper instruction that was required requested by counsel that is not the state law that is not the statute that describes what is admissible as accomplice testimony said inform the jury that they could rely nothing very little and didn't follow through on any significant impeachment of bryant on the critical factor that he knew the unless or question the only other thing that i want to say about about the pl made a finding enforceable agreement with him that the prosecutor is going to recommend to the judge a life sentence and that's what was kept from this jury that's very very different then and i may get a life sentence and in fact and i may be wrong on that now counsel will probably make a great deal or try to make a great deal of the fact that brian was promised something well we have an immunity agreement you can read that the court  i ask you to read the language used in approving this that is valjean for the fact that there was no other agreement and that bryant was mis understood what was going on in fact if you go back to the discussions with in front of the jury you better make sure that the jury understands that there is no promise because brian this understands it and the critical thing is the fury should have known that this prosecutor felt that his