PORTLAND, Maine (NEWS CENTER) - The key witness in the Anthony Sanborn case took the stand today.

Hope Cady testified back in 1992 that she witnessed Sanborn stab Jessica Briggs on the Maine State Pier. In April, 25-years later, she returned to court to say she lied back then. That led to Sanborn be released from prison on bail.

Cady recanting her testimony is one of the main factors for the judge deciding whether or not Sanborn’s murder conviction will be thrown out.

Surprisingly, Hope Cady’s time on the witness stand was brief. She said she didn’t remember much about 1989, the time of the murder, or 1992, the time of Sanborn’s trial. But she did stand by her testimony in April when she told the judge she lied about seeing Sanborn murder Briggs.

It was an emotional day in court for Sanborn as he sat just a few feet away from the witness who helped send him to prison for 27-years, but also helped free him when she changed her story in April of this year.

Cady testified in April police coerced her into testifying against Sanborn. Today she said she was afraid of the police investigating the Brigg’s murder. She said they were stalking her.

“Everywhere, like foster homes and stuff. Everywhere I went they just showed up", she said.

"And how did you feel about that?", asked defense attorney Tim Zerillo.

"Scared”, Cady replied.

“And why did you decide that it was important to tell the truth about that testimony in April of this year?", Zerillo asked.

"I just felt it was the right thing to do”, Cady said.

“In April of this year, was that the first time you told the truth about this case?", Zerillo asked.

"I believe so”, Cady replied.

Cady was also asked what it’s been like since recanting her testimony. She responded, rough, but did not elaborate.

“Even though its been hard on you, do you regret telling the truth back in April?", Zerillo asked.

"No I do not”, Cady said.

Cady testified after she changed her story earlier this year she reached out to Sanborn’s attorney to see if she could meet with Sanborn. When asked why, the judge ruled she did not have to answer because of her potential liability in a civil lawsuit. She did testify however, that meeting never happened.