it please the court erik will talk on behalf of helen john hildebrand i'd like to emphasize three points in this argument first is like to emphasize the states unreasonably negative characterization of the impeachment evidence that could have been presented in relation to the complaining witness in this case i'd like to emphasize the states and we did little inflation of the impeachment value  the incriminating value of the pretext telephone call that occurred after the complaint was made and finally i'd like to emphasize that putting these two factors together that there is an essential need for an eviden hearing in this case to fairly resolve it he views court as claims with respect to the state's characterization of state courts characterization of the potential impeaching value are they could have been derived if the trial counsel had investigated disfigurement well she has some surgery apparently yes and you can't have a surgery without leaving some scar and whether it's just figuring out i guess is a matter of opinion well you know it's also a matter of  roommates her boyfriend could testify as to whether there was ever any scarring i'm just saying ok but whether she was scarred or not in her opinion you know beyond which she should have been is this is kind of her own judgment and it's highly impeaching well well impeaching possible they all used to that particular false statements not questions a false statement then we get on to this very curious aspect of by her deposition where she denied during the previous three years having anybody else living in her household now i'm guessing that if by this court give a pop quiz to that audience in this room people would be pretty darn accurate and turning in stating who was the member of their household prior three years you're trying to the deposition i am in the question was asked something along the lines of who's living with you know one of them in your household and then the lawyer but it in and answered and then she responded and hard to tell if she's responding to the lawyer and then the two words are starting to snipe at each other is that the colloquy we're talking about that's the color rick we were talking about but actually it's very easy to determine what they were talking about because the attorney for the defendant got into one of the homeowners and so her denial that anybody lived in a household would have the fair deterred otherwise put the defense attorney off investigate an investigation and finally i do the same period a in a flurry of lawsuits within a year prior to the accusation against a particular criminal defendant particularly where the available information to counsel he knew of the lawsuits that existed because th reasonable doubt and there was no extrinsic impeachment of her counsel didn't feature with the number of inconsistent statements she made to her to her mother to the police to the board of medical examiners about how the incident occurred still counsel counsel did what he could with the inconsistent statements in the context of the case counsel tried to get some a larger impeachment court nacro impeachment to show that she was not a trustworthy person but the judge ruled that evidence inadmissible that's the evidence that she denied having a sexual relationship with this man only is jingo that was ruled inadmissible but it shows the been how impeaching would joly issue goes testimony that she had a character defect that she was a liar b and we need an independent trier of fact to be able to listen to these witnesses watching as ms leatherman reacts to questions about her false statements and see whether she had and innocent explanation for making multiple for statements under oath or whether it made her implicitly or explicitly look like a sole purpose of the hearing with respect to the prejudiced from the ineffective assistance ineffective assistance of the other things that we would like an evidentiary hearing on relates to the pretext to take tape recorde because i assume that everybody in the court has as you know well that some degree of some degree of scrutiny and the point i wanted to size with respect to that is who  best suited situated to bring out every incriminating nuance in that tape tell the jury hear that evidence and make a determination regarding what the content the tape last and what the import  our guy lost but not necessarily because of the tape because it's an unfair characterization that the tape is a slam dunk incriminating well i wanted to touch your johnson's question ok the jury heard the tape they heard these two arguments and he convicted your guy but they didn't hear what they didn't hear was that castro letterman was a congenital liar and she proved it in her life because if i may refer the court to you for the you know ninety one here's the prosecutor's argument to the jury call not the called the defendant now the state court has elevated that pretext hate it to some mythical status of a slam dunk now with respect to whether it's really prejudicial or not there's a ton of context ten years worth of medical treatment that will do to loose a date whether that ought to be treated as some kind of apotheosis of incriminating statement or whether it's an accommodation that conscientious doctor would make to the reason to a trial you know there was no incentive to because the parties recognized that the that the tape w issue here he took his chances the trial based on his view of the state of the evidence and the court has made a big a characterization of the import of the impeaching evidence that response brief