claim because i think it's the more straightforward why i say that because there's no allegation of any procedural bar there's no question it's based on clearly established law and the facts regarding that claim i think are relatively simple because so much is undisputed here there's no question that mr washington state commission also saying that he wasn't there he did say that but i think that was among reasonable and alice's that the washing course did there as far as the part that mr pettus missed there was no those words because of the second issue in this case but you have a first amendment right to say things to someone like i think you're a wannabe you don't have a first amendment right to say to somebody i'm going to shoot you right now  but first amendment aside and more specific somebody says something you know like you consume the first amendment protects protects against private reprisals well again  i wasn't going to argue the big first amendment issue here but that issue in this case the issue in this case is whether mr riley was deprived of his right to self defense because of his first amendment protected speech only after being threatened with a credible threat that he himself would be sho if in fact mr riley is telling the truth that he's having a friendly conversation until these two gang members are threatening to shoot him and then he calls this guy no he is not the they please the court i'm john simpson assistant attorney general representing the respondent the standard that this court must apply under twenty fifty four d is whether the state court decision that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel was that decision objective leon reasonable and that's standard is higher and clearly erroneous standard and in this case petitioners failed to show that the state court's decision was reasonable probability it would have affected the jury's verdict in this day court also found that he had failed to show deficient performance and addressing the prejudice issue it is because mr pettus ran away he they are gang members or gang one of these dangerous but that is not what we hear from florida's most dangerous people except for the outside of the gang members in the cities i understand that your honor but that does not allow people to shoot one another seen it many times it is an issue for the jury to decide the jury the jury rejected it but i think what's even more important and i'll take the second part of my argument on this is that there was testimony trick or operate that these types of statements were made and that threats were made and he admitted that they were gang members and that they did have guns and then t could be they would react in a threatening manner to the term want to be over to insults from another person so there was cooperation the issue on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is one of haddest testimony made it different and  because he ran away when that threat was made so there's already i think i have no reason to dispute petitioner's statements that his testimony was essentially i don't remember what happened but clearly mr callaway here who was the other person there present did cooperate mr ryan mr pettus on the other hand even if even if they could show prejudiced they are still the reasonable mr kronk and in the state court decision is objective only reasonable that there was a basis not to call him as a witness he was involve a situation where the alibi witnesses who were not called were unbiased they had no criminal records they had no connection to the defendant at all and a knack a stick or determinate it was unreasonable not to call them all the witnesses in this case could inquire into the bias you put mr reilly friend that would weaken his testimony there is there's a reasonable strategic there's a vision a strategic reason for not calling him as  as a witness back in the record fully developed to relieve one or the other either for petitioner or for the state should be given here or was there anything that could be brought out in evidence  hearing in the district court as we don't know now if the court order to determine that this is a court decision is objectively on reason ball the issues that could be further developed would be the counsel's actual proper processes of why he and i know that if his file had indicated one way or the other well i don't believe there's anything in his file that suggests that he ever contacted him and i don't believe he ever suggested to me that he had a reason aren't counsel