more with other issues simply because it's somewhat academic depending on the whether or not there's a violation of the common convention cause if we get to the point and we assume there was a council that you could have a circumstance where there was no prejudice and therefore it was the error was the excuse me the fault of a power council did not in court that that was certainly cause to include him in the investigation of the murder except that it's not just the testimony from the type the battle that we're relying on t relocated and and if the state with accurately roof reflected what mr brooks testified at trial that statement was still enough to reopen the investigation  how do we know whether that in the color of the jury's view of the confession you don't have to just get through the deference typically given to counsel under strickland you have to get through a second layer of deference  ed right where we would have to say that it was just clearly contrary to supreme court precedent or a reasonable application of supreme court precedent for the appellate division to look at this record and assess it and say we think a fair minded jury looking just at the confession could have convicted is there any question with parker first any question that the issue that was raised by defense counsel i would not concede that that was an issue they had any read from where direct review that would have been ok but understand for suspects then forget the federal law here we're talking about ineffectiveness of counsel presumably public counsel those new jersey state law and banks the bunch seem both to make pretty clear that you can't walk up to that wire with get in trouble you're not supposed to be under the guise of telling people what the police i mean why they did what they did next you bilbray and go past the direct examination and and go to the closing argument what are we to make of that closing argument where the prosecutor chooses to to say suggests but maybe it's a better think they ask you this it even matter to the state can you win even if if if it was a rank violation of the hearsay rule of the competition clause and states the w doesn't matter because he confessed please speak to mr leeds his point that out you can't separate out the references to with bush from the confession because it would cover the the case actually take that back i'm trying to get you not to respond to deal with the prejudice problem but since you still want to talk about this the argument i understand mr leads to be making as the implication strong implication is when bush fingered brooks as the murderer that that is what the jury could reasonably have understood from what was being said so it doesn't seem to advance the state's cause here to say the most that could have been assumed or understood was that that brooks was at the scene because they're making a pretty good argument on the other side but that is not the most you could understand you could understand a lot more as being implied by what the prosecutor chose to say closing argument or is it the same standard as that prejudiced standard under strickland or is it something different well that assessment of the record is either contrary to one and unreliable application of control of the supreme court what can you point us to meet that high standard with respect to that statement from the