our final case of the day is this case are important this was a stem from allegations that frankly were decades old from the late one nine hundred eighty nine to early one nine hundred ninety three so the case was brought after nearly twenty twenty five years and the issues at play here are as follows the first has to do with what the petitioner considers the key witness or one of the key witnesses in th e state's case which was one detective miles not detective miles was the lead investigator in this case he took the initial complaint from the complain and he was the last witness who was called by the state at the end of the case in this particular instance detective miles was questioned and  his testimony offered the following that he believed that e m who was the complainant in this case was a very believe was very believable was very truthful and was genuinely upset when he spoke to her and again this was the last witness that the state had call him mr rose the the problem here from this  didn't specifically say well this was directly a was directly about being issue i did say it would been better for them not to comment on the demeanor of the witness but it's still the bottom line is right and i've and that's why i say if this were happening in front of a you know trial in front of me i suspect i would have handled this differently but this is a matter of as i as it's presented as state evidence law in the state courts are telling us there is no error well that's what the state courts are saying but i don't believe in a matter of state law why is that not conclusive here well i don't because of the  for the for the our position in this case and in earl versed in the car for you that dealt with the issue of when in that instance there was an expert witness i believe was a social worker who specifically testified that the victim or the complaint in the complaint in that case was very believable and very truthful and again that the in the rolls case that was although  again referenced haseltine which is a matter of state law it said it was very clear that this was something that should have been readily apparent to the attorney at the time that the testimony came it and the attorney i believe on postcondition motions also testified and testified that he had no no reason he had could offer no reason why he did not object and the same thing happened here derive the case is a credibility determination between e m and and then holmes but it seems to me there was significant corroborating evidence as well here of  so you know we have to factor all of that i mean wow well i understand what you're saying and my my point that i was making was that the case dealt with credibility only there with as i said when i began that this was a decades old case it wasn't as if this was something that just happened recently so credibility there was no physical evidence credibility was the key issue and i agree that there were witnesses who testified for him but there were also witnesses who testified for mr cent holes including i believe what i mentioned in my reply and in my original brief which was  sexual assaults that occurred and the aunt testify clearly no that never happened so there is other evidence i agree but there was evidence on both sides as in in reference to that tape that is concerned i don't believe the tape was actually before or was included as part of the record however what i would note about that tape because it was referenced in the brief of the state and i have mentioned this previously mister the petitioner here who testified in his own defense and again as i stated before it is a credibility issue that tape he never once said on that tape oh i had committed sexual assaults against her and in fact when confronted about those that tape he specifically testify that he was trying to get her off his back it was a secretly recorded conversation and that in fact he had a reasonable explanation but i disagree that that the only issue was credibility between between e m and mr sun holes in fact what i was saying was the whole case boiled down to that and why i was saying the lead detective who testified at the end of the state's case why his testimony was so important is because he said she was very believable very truthful genuinely upset he went even beyond that it wasn't even question he then made mention mr centrals when he first confronted mr sidles he was unwilling to speak to me oh and by the way when confronted about allegations of sexual assault he wasn't surprised so this witness went well beyond the pale when he was testifying and he was clearly testifying credibility that's why i'm saying there really isn't any issue of state law to interpret because it's very clear it's a hassle team violation and because of that  getting short on time but the other issue of course is that the issue of the closing arguments which we believe also violated due process in rebuttal is what in the prosecutor's argument into the she had some kind of special knowledge well when she when she was giving her rebuttal argument and she used the term i'm begging you don't let him get away with this any day longer is there a constitutional difference between asking and begging for a conviction well i think there is because in this particular instance when you're saying i i'm the prosecutor i am begging you myself personally to not let him get away with this any day longer that is a prick that is something personal that's personal to the person who's giving the argument and it's different than just simply saying i asked based on all the evidence to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and she went beyond cheap she went beyond just saying i'm begging  are those sorts of comments on constitutional well i think it's been spun the context of the comments and i guess that's what i'm saying here because i think you know if she had said please please please please the first claim at its core doesn't involve a federal issue it's about whether the state courts properly interpreted a state of an entry rule in deciding ineffective assistance claim to grant relief with us require this court to second guess the state courts evaluation of state law in essence this court would be saying that this a court's decision on its own law was unreasonable which went beyond the scope of what is right to detective miles wrap up testimony contribute to  s excuse me what it is wrapped up testimony contribute to the proof of the prosecution it provided some context for how the investigation took place and how is that relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence you need to remember that we have a series of cases in the seventh circuit holding that it's not and cannot be admitted which is i think likely what my colleague said earlier that if this were in a federal but when police officers start testifying about the course of their investigation they start talking about the information they received from informants and tipsters and so on and it's not relevant to anything in it it just opens  floodgate for unconstitutional evidence right my impression of this testimony is that it really is not relevant to the rest of the proceedings if it was not it was not significant but there is no confrontation problem because both of both the police witness and the victim were they are sure yes there's no confrontation issue in this case here that's presented by this issue obviously no confrontation issues been briefed here i  and it certainly is significant i mean isn't there a significant threat that a jury would you know defer to the detectives determination of credibility what  write i can't see is how his characterization of heard truthfulness would be necessary to any description of his investigation otherwise we'd have police officers getting on the stand all the time and they would be saying things like the reason i continued my investigation and the reason we're here today is because she's truthful well i mean i'm failing to see the federal constitutional issue that here because there are some states that do allow witnesses to testify about the credibility of other witnesses at trial and hazeltine itself is not a federal constitutional question so while i appreciate that there may be some confrontation issues with having a police officer testify in quote wrap up testimony that first of all that issue has not been raised in this case and secondly it's been presented as a hazeltine violation which is a state evidentiary question and it's not it's not a it's not a question of constitutional dimension to the next issue the second claim alleges impermissible vouching opposing argument that fails because first the trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to object to the prosecutor remarks second because those remarks weren't pouching under any standard they were not an opinion about the credibility of a witness i don't see how banking shows personal knowledge or personal opinion about credibility they didn't suggest the prosecutor had secret facts that were not presented at trial and perhaps most importantly there was strong evidence of sand holtz's guilt that was present in this case and that's that's relevant to prejudice  strickland and also prejudice under darden as this court has repeatedly held evidence of guilt is the most important factor in determining whether a prosecutor's remarks render the trial unfair here you have the victor's victim's allegations which are course bolstered by cent holtz's admission various admissions he said that he he hoped that he wouldn't do it again when he was challenged by  by the victim his apologies to her in the secretly recorded conversation and by the contemporaneous notes that the victim and her best friend wrote about the assaults as you as you pointed out  because the testimony was inadmissible under wisconsin law so there was determination under wisconsin law that this testimony was admissible under one of the urls claims this court said that it wouldn't second guess that determination again to do so but effectively effectively be for this court to say that the state laws from a nation was unreasonable by the state courts and that's contrary to  strong evidence of central to skillz and for that reason it's difficult for would be difficult for any court particularly court and maybe it's reviewed say that the proceedings were