efficiency of the performance of mr well as counsel the state courts found that no prejudiced mr willard had suffered no prejudice because there had been a lapse of forty five minutes that have passed between were there was one person the neighbor of the opponent who was the prosecution's full witness and that person was a woman by the name of hope and she testified that she had heard steve word who was also her neighbor some time outside their apartment around eight ten it fifteen or eight thirty she couldn't precisely remember the times during a television program apollo at around eight to eight fifteen the trial testimony then becomes eight to eight thirty and after the prosecution questions her hardest to remember she says i think i was watching cops and that's why i remember that was probably up to  there seems to be overwhelming evidence of the possession of stolen property there seems to be overwhelming evidence of impersonation but i just don't see the evidence as to the actual burglary where was the evidence that this man entered the home at the time you're saying  there is no evidence as to that and the prosecution's response to that was george we have one witness a neighbor and she has a very sharp working here and she  because if we believe the alibi witness peters would have testified that the appellant was at the bar from eight to eight thirty if the jury believes that the problem was there for it until eight thirty twenty minute time of time which is something else that counsel them bring up a trial there's a twenty minute time between the bar and the home that place that the appellant at the house at eight fifty the victim in this case says that he left the factual statements from people who sponsors are based on the lower courts opinions if you look at the actual transcripts you see that's the a bit the victim in this case mr robert said that he had left this house around seven ten some fifteen and returned an hour and a half later some ten or some fifteen means eight forty five forty three forty five well i think that at some and in this case had the jury believed peters then they would have believed what the appellant had testified to and we know that the jury was focusing on exactly that issue practice but i think that there are other sources that also support that i would like to sort of i guess the minutes thank you all the evidence was weak in the court mention the evidence was weak but where was the direct evidence might have been weak circumstantial evidence was very strong and circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence or any other type of evidence and when you look at the spring i mean it's fairly going to pennsylvania and the last time he actually told officer hendren officer that apprehended them that he had seen a t v show about how hard it was for a year for the police to five people who were out on warrants his quote was i think you guys would never come and get me for th regard to time it is interesting to hear the state's response that peter's testimony should be lost they made but that holds testimony eight eight ten eight fifteen eight thirty that seems to be irrelevant the bottom line is that peter failed to attach sufficient weight in significance to the fact that cooperation to the credibility of this witness when his trial counsel present that the alibi witness was crucial and the defendant w