trial counsel had one and only one strategy to defend mr burst and that was the tactic that ability of the complaining witness to tactic to attack the truthfulness of the complaining witness and he failed in implementing that strategy the district court so found with respect to his misguided effort which failed to yield the complaining witness his juvenile record i'm going to argue if i have time that it's just a court erred in failing to find that he was also ineffect l and here is the area where the district court was unreasonable in characterizing the impeachment evidence and the impact that it could have had on page nine of the of the opinion the district court actually acknowledging the truth once he gets got once he's got caught in a lie now a defense counsel could take this and asked the mother what's your opinion of the character of your son for telling the truth in difficult situation fragile accused by his own mother of stealing from her answer new husband and stove and he lies to the jury that i have i've been clean for a year before this happened and i only had one with the police in my life when they when they got me with got me for some methamphetamine but i've been clean for a year that's false and it shows that he was falsely portraying himself who had no reason to make make up a story against somebody because otherwise life was going along just fine declaration on the record to record number eight which is page three he says now that i've had a chance to review michael steele with juvenile records i believe that they can think devastating impeachment evidence which i would have presented in argue argued vigorously had it been available to me trial so you have the our the argument against you that the problem i having with the case is not whether he would counsel it used that i'm quite convinced he would have used that the e evidence which would give the jury an idea of who's telling the truth and the fact that one person is a character logical liar and like to his employer his grandparents his mother and with and being a chronological liar would have made a tremendous difference to the jury my final comment on the strength of the evidence this the physical evidence was ranged from equivocal to exculpate story because there was  not just one person's word against another at trial because there was also the forensic evidence and there was also the defendant's statements are so regardless of whether trial counsel should have followed up on getting the juvenile records and he probably should have the employment records probably not but even if he had gotten that even if he had used that for additional impeachment what the district court said was an adolescent lying to his mother is quite different than fabricating intricate story of sexual abuse for no apparent purpose and as your honor pointed out when the victim called nine one one the rangers came out they saw him crouching down in the phone  it's not exactly clear when the events occurred so the phone call was i believe around two thirty in the morning but it's unclear whether the event occurred later versus earlier or not it was unexplained it was raised at trial  hears this evolving sequence of statements which the first one is demonstrably false how are they going to evaluate that even if it's that i think the victim had some additional impeachment  consistent with the narrative that could have been presented that that he needed to use this incident to turn himself from the black sheep of the family who was in increasing trouble into a victim really get  my family would rally around him just as they did the first thing that his mother says that the ranger write him over to them at two thirty in the morning and woke him up w every possible front and this was a from a to a sixteen year old boy's point you can surely great way of getting turning the tide of his of his failing life's fortunes so that the sexual examination trauma actually fits in with his self victimization here as much as the other physical evidence we're going to ask the court to take a step back for an overview with this the jury got nothing to got no evidence whatsoever to impugn his credibility the prosecutor was able to argue the jury you don't have any reason for him to make this up but there was a host of reasons for him to have made this up based on his failing life circumstances that at that silly solutions versus clear channel communications so we'll take a ten minute break at this time