support other than his affidavit at trial i forget whether it's the first or second day his attorney stated on the record that there was a witness vernon campbell that was an important defense witness that he hadn't spoken to and also one point during holbrooke's testimony she was asked so everything that you're telling us somebody else told you petitioner didn't tell you that correct and she answers correct so at the time he's and denying the strickland there are two prongs it's unclear where they say without merit whether it was the first of the second prong so i would not say that it's safe to say that they assumed they could have decided under the prejudice let's take take  things to preclude her testimony from being heard going to the jury but relying on cross examination you have holbrooke say i heard the defendant say he went he was going to stick up the cab she's cross examine or cross examined let's say it was a s of a robbery it certainly was the strongest evidence of a robbery and as you know there was two grounds for conviction and one was felony murder the other was deliberate premeditation but the statement of he was going to stick up the cab certainly goes to obviously rather goes to the robbery it's like wives goes to the deliberate premeditation in his statement he admits that he was in the cab that he had a gun and that there was an argument and he shot the cab  interview him will cause any harm with what we have on the record campbell was a commonwealth witness it's announced in the first trial they decided not to bring him presumably because she changed his story and i believe says i expect that he's going to say that what holbrooke is saying is a lie or something to that effect so i think it's clear also from the defendant's affidavit he had told his trial attorney that one hundred said isn't a lot of these are the people that will we don't have specific record saying had i been interviewed i would have said this we have evidence the defendants we have a defense affidavit that campbell can call indicates that holbrooke is lying we have a defense attorney saying campbell is an important witness all saying we think he's going to change his story and not be good for us we're not going to call him if you look at those three things together i believe you have enough to to say that campbell one of said th understanding your argument is that he decided not to interview her had he interviewed her he might have preemptively cut her off the stand instead she took the stand he constant up in front of the jury making the government's case look like they are riding on a witness who's a liar and how do we find that that because even having carved her up the defendant's statement i'm going to stick i went to the cabin i'm going to stick it up it's the only place it appears in the records from holbrook there individual pulling the legs out from underneath really is not effective because the jerry still hears the defendant told somebody he was going to stick up the cab that that is essentially the end of the case for me even with his his statement which admits being at the cabin that's having the gun he still had a viable trial perhaps for second degree perhaps for manslaughter once this jury hears he told somebody he was going to stick up a cab that's the end of it as a criminal intent from the the first bond i mean how in the world could a defense counsel in a murder case not bother to talk to any of the witnesses the witnesses start with the homework first of all she was a very hostile going to testify and what's she going to say maybe she tells you maybe she doesn't if she tells you then you know and you go to the judge and say this is all hearsay he had all that information before him without talking to  and at the victim witness had contacted north carolina certainly south carolina to get a copy of the police report so petitioners claimed that there was some kind of deal record is clear that there were no threats by the police that the the choice of not to interview the whole book was a strategic one that is not outside the realm of to understood a few quick points in this case we are not second guessing our claim is actually based on facts known at the time prior to trial the defense attorney had been told all of this information this is not a speaking to a witness or having investigator speak to a witness does not give them a preview of what the cross examination is you can ask them a lot of questions that you have no real concern with the answers for it would be very difficult for a witness asked twenty questions to pick up the one question that you're going to focus on and change your statement or first of all but that's what i just heard from the government's counsel was your argument is the only real benefit of speaking to the witness would have been that you could have been moved preemptively to keep holbrooke off the stance the have never heard the hearsay that would have required counsel to disclose to holbrook in the government the hearsay argument before holbrooke took the stand and committed herself as to how and where she heard necessarily had to be witnesses at trial and she could have been at some point she would have been cross examined and if she's cross examined on the motion in limine says the things that she said at trial she couldn't then at trial