these are clear misstatements of the evidence designed to destroy the defense argument but in jackson could not be placed inside a mere dorn's vehicle at the time of the murder and these improper arguments created in the courtroom here this is first wro into beauty different ways by impeachment the state presented evidence that no tissue ball had previously identified jackson getting out of the mayor's car however she testified that the second trial very clearly show only identified him because detective he puts himself outside looking at the carpet nothing places him inside that car as the shooter and that's what is critical to this case who shot there thornton and again will he have to write very few facts that the state took those two pieces of critical physical evidence the blood spot in a fingerprint and exaggerated them and misstated them the state is worse that their own witnesses would not use on the stand would not say evidence was critical here and this type of scientific evidence has a very powerful influence on the jury and to the counsel failed to jack when the prosecutor exaggerated that evidence a closing argument and said  did was it evidence that somebody consistent with mere door and was recovered from outside of the vehicle but he did not argue with the closing argument but the air jackson could have come into contact with this blood instead his argument was they can't tell you that the blood is john exact used by trial strategy in jackson showed it to neglected this case on this very critical area of the d n a evidence something that goes to the core of his case of the some of the very few items of proof presented to any evidence they refer to closing argument to understand where the comments might be coming from to try to convince me that constitute misconduct then this court has asked whether or not the comments and when there are substantial prejudice against the this particular he shares the prosecution did not move personal air or air play area based on his comments in closing argument and was just passionately advocating in trying to close his case that he had been working so hard on many of the comments arose just from natural assumptions that could be drawn from the evidence that was presented to the jury specifically the issue of that was presented and in addition to the evidence that was presented the state would so far as to show evidence of why something might be absent and see if they really tried to get a full picture of why the crime scene was the way it could not say that this d n a was a match there are specific words there as the d n a evidence is so complicated and i think that's the most frustrating thing about the record here is how little developed it is but it was very probably to the victims what is the state is saying today but it's a man and that's what the jury good and the out of the jury did hear jury instructions but they also heard this this was the last thing that they heard before they retired jury to the jury counsel he said his trial strategy would have been to argue against it that he didn't and here the jury was allowed to hear that without objection which shows again clear neglect of this case and i would ask that this court does not reverse a remand this