that this is the sort of case that harms the public reputation of the judicial process could you talk about prejudice a little bit and i was struck that the slide wasn't pulled back and it was no cartlidge with my trainer and the gun was in the well first of all how would the bandit know whether or not the gun was chambered he knew that if they're both named jackson and so there's running jackson is the scene and great jackson it's my client  different stories a question for the jury and had and howard put on job there who went under not only impeached for the eye witness for the prosecution with a prior inconsistent statement that he said the day after the incident when it was fresh in his mind that had he been my client situation he too would have shot that but then also that he had a motive for bias because the police were pressuring him with another with a murder charge of his own unreasonable but in the meaning of the act even though that conclusion was not immediately apparent now by first class they do appear to look through each when i think they take they do scrutinize it closely because even i felt it was a close ca will case of self defense based mainly on the victim's possession of a loaded firearm and then they say it appears however that he was convicted based upon the eyewitness testimony of albert forty three nuclear the fact that vernon jackson's weapon did not have around the chamber and the location of the bullet entry wounds and burning jackson five it does not appear that further investigation by counsel would have undermined this evidence that looks to me like a jury the questions the questions on credibility you know they say you know these witnesses wouldn't undermined the defendant's guilt well that's the standard it's whether there's a reasonable probability that they would have had a reasonable doubt had he put on these what we think that he was convicted on and i think it's obvious that the judgment was backed by constitution or error of counsel because the failure to investigate the failure to prepare the failure to of you know the right to adequately prepared counsel to make the decision whether or not to testify in their own behalf with the advice the prepared counsel he they you know they say that because he had that police reports because he had the discovery that you know because the failure to investigate can be excused but you know i don't think that that's the case at all i thin familiar doesn't conduct any investigation then and then as a result apprised the defendant of the trial right by failing to call these witnesses and effectively cross examined especially substitutes you know just the witnesses because they have convictions and and because they were incarcerated with mr jackson one though my question is for the jury i mean that's what police are saying in places you can't take things away from specific focus on factual culpability but legal guilt would there have been a reasonable doubt and i don't think you can honestly say looking at this had he done what he was supposed to do call these witnesses that that there's not a reasonable probability and under the political statute and also i'd go on to say that it's certainly based on sound evidence he called crime stoppers he called in to the police department in other words and reported there was a man met with the with the officer who was the husband of his boss out of denny's restaurant but he definitely approached the police and that would negate the argument that the police made him testify would be a waste of time to call him and he was thinking about the fact that he had strong all of evidence of self defense jackson statements jackson's testimony had codefendant dancy's testimony the victim very racist and very aggressive remark immediately before the murder and plus the fact that the victim had to go on the body plus to you know listen to the testimony at the trial on cross examination of mr lang the this was a good tactical decision and then you add on the fact you add on top of that mr joe bear had four prior theft convictions he'd been in jail where the defendant had an opportunity to and it would have hurt the credibility of the fans to put on joe bear and all these other witnesses particularly when the state pointed out that mr chapman one of their witnesses who claimed that the state eviden hearing to have been present at the time of the murder they put on his testimony he would have been impeached by evidence that he was in jail at the time and  howard mr howard had multiple forgery convictions he'd been in the jail with the defendant had an opportunity and you know the big problem with this stills and howard testimony is that  is that still squid not say that greg that vernon jackson went out to to get his gun after meeting with mr gregory jackson because he did not know greg rejections and i believe that's the evidence in the record judge directly found this was not correct credible testimony still power that's for some to plea correct the reputation for violence evidence certainly looks like that's what happened and like to say briefly that the defense in its reply brief cited the mason case from the sixth circuit and showing a prejudice and in that instance it they talk about a denial of counsel that a critical stage well mason is different in this case and the developers are calling categories the first category doesn't apply because the first category requires government interference with the right to counsel inmates when the attorney had been suspended from practice thirty days before