convict him of manslaughter in a riving and it's decision the jury had to decide whether felton gray acted in self defense when he killed his friend six foot five inch two hundred ninety pound former n f l linebacker mark hughes thomas mr thomas and other men had come to mr gray's apartment after a long night of drinking to confront mr gray about a fight that occurred earlier in the evening during the seven days of trial testimony that the record is marked by repeated in incidences of trial counsel's ineffective representation one of those examples involves the nine one one evidence in this case specifically trial counsel opened to the jury on the fact that the man who went with mr thomas to mr gray's apartment that night ran away and did not call nine one one after m with this record because the question was let me for your honor that is correct however i submit to the court that the other incidences of ineffectiveness are relevant to this court's determination as to the prejudice or the certified issue under strict when we look at the entire representation in order to fight another sort of fun i beg your pardon certify the issues and i'm certified the facts your honor the facts leading up to why don't you start talking about what's before us as a sort of a yes as for the specific issue certified by the district court the issue as to the character evidence and whether mr graves made a sufficient showing of prejudice with regard to the character evidence testify as to the victim's reputation for aggressive behavior  there are no cases state or federal that precisely fit the parameters of this case in this case mr gray named the specific witnesses needed in the one the before anybody came to his house he didn't go in and because he was afraid for his life when all these people came to see him he already had and they had already said certain things that he was going to do if anybody i agree in part with what you're saying the importance and i have to but it's there and you know it it was it is a fact that i believe we have to look at that fact in the larger context specifically that it is true arrived however he was in his apartment and it was these men who came to his apartment and he let in his cousin and one of the men and then the victim came in on his own and i believe again looking in the larger context and your honor judge harris you referred to the statement that he had said previously what he thought he was allowed to do if someone came into his house stripped and was the statement and i believe again this the civic issue was not certified by the district court i believe the record shows that we made a substantial showing of of the denial of a constitutional right because his attorney was not aware of that statement he goes to joins all of the evidence of course your honor went to show the facts of the case in the state of mind but of course this was a split verdict ten to two and had there been one more person who could have been swayed that mr gray acted in self defense then the jury would have been hung on a manslaughter count and i believe again that's why it's so important every single act of counsel from opening statement until his his not because of the amazing representation of counsel but because of the weakness of the case and the closeness of this case and looking at all of the facts that took place over the days trying to decide whether mr gray in responding to this very large man who was in close proximity and who mr gray testified lunch for the gun and who the only other percipient witness to the actual reaching for the gun in terms of visually seeing it was during when and that was my cut my client's cousin and mr when while the testimony isn't perfectly articulate says that mr the victim mr thomas kind of stood up or went moved up slightly and that's when gr uses aggressive nature they either did not know mark news recently or had provided other testimony harmful gray's case and that finding was not only reasonable  this is a state alias case if it's not a reasonable one we've had twenty two fifty four and that's the end of the case your honor i believe that we are not it's not the end of the case because on this record we've established that under d one that the state court concluded unreasonably that there was no violation of strickland vs washington and under d to in relation to the fact finding to which judge bear you just referred to the state court record with we look at the full trial transcript as well as the deposition testimony by mr grey and his defense counsel mr gr stated the names of the witnesses and to what they would testify to when his attorney when his attorney was deposed defense counsel said he wasn't sure he remembered he thought that they had said things that hurt more than helped but he couldn't recall and he noted that he had three boxes of files on the floor and he had not yet had time to look at them and i believe that mr gray's sipek recollection compared to trial counsel's more vague generalization that we can look to mr e trial counsel provided us with corroboration in part of the availability of these witnesses and that they wanted to help them were willing to help i submit that in terms of what he says it's bad for us that part is court stephen powers for the superintendent for purposes of state law it is well settled that a post conviction petitioners testimony as a matter of law is insufficient to carry the burden on the inadequate  something that says we have to take well both in state law and federal law have said to prove a a claim of inadequate assistance you have to prove prejudice and in proving prejudice state law under the new case or smith and in the ninth circuit under wildman have said speculation is not enough to prove that prejudice and so i think the state court of state law also whether calling other witnesses for the victim's reputation for violence there was a state post conviction court finding that indeed trial counsel did in that there were two sort of suggesting which is that i don't think it's enough for us to say but the state has this doctrine of state law that says you need more than your own declaration or your own evidence i think that it's not inappropriate to look at what else there is this court's decisions regarding what is a sufficient showing of prejudice in wild men and grizz b are distinguishable because they involve expert testimony that is why it was speculative the petitioner in that case had no basis  with any certainty what those two what those experts would testify if you hear character evidence is different mr gray was in the same community as the victim and these other witnesses they were all friends and he had the experiences t sheer experiences that he could testify as to their reputations in the community this court's decision in united states versus barry is also distinguishable because in that case the petitioner quote offers no indication indication of what these witnesses would have testified to or how their testimony might have changed the outcome of the hearing the same with the a forte versus stewart petitioner their quote presented no evidence and united states first the shock lander that