this case primarily concerns faith for application of the supreme court's role especially on counsel petitioners at the first stage of post conviction proceedings that hearing to that framework mr lewis has made an arguable claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to study or up a teen any information that would indicate whether or not sexual contact up the nature in this case would result in the contraction of county jail counsel do we accept as true know anything about what that medical testimony or scientific testimony would be regarding whether or not you would contract  introduction of the clemente act because there was nothing to suggest that you would contract committee out based on sexual contact yes and that begs the exact question in this case why wasn't there sufficient evidence to overcome the information you don't know what what what you're actually suggesting delete is there any anything in the record that suggests what you're saying that there would be some kind of evidence of contraction of the sexually transmitted disease by another person because they had intercourse with another individual i had nothing record and again that points to the failure of the exact value of counsel in this case had counsel sought out that information is at leas in the context of this case where there was alleged sexual contact between the complaining witness and mr lewis we know that at bare minimum there is a chance of transmission by sexual contact because the disease is transmitted sexually and so we take those facts in the situate them in the in the context of the remaining trial evidence that is at least arguable that there is that the confidence in the outer the jury's guilty verdict is undermined now i don't think the parties have really  knowing that neither of us actually did any out of state research are you aware of the great weight of authority regarding this theory issue of the transmission of the media in state is there or are you aware of the greater weight of authority that he actually says that under other statutes in other states where they have a rape shield statute that the for many are that the greater weight of authority indicates that the rape shield statute weighs in favor of not introducing or allowing the introduction else and defendant is trying to get that information before the jury to suggest that because of those prior acts there was either no sex in this case or the sex was consensual or something along those lines to draw an inference from those unrelated acts and to try  conviction case but counsel sounding effective for failing to present testimony by occasion the complaining witness in that case had had sex with another person and that evidence would have been relevant to explain the physical evidence in the case notably a says it really goes directly to the heart of that issue that evidence that eight victims male or female having interacted a sexually transmitted disease egoless record doesn't show the at all but there certainly medical scientific evidence out there to suggest that generally i mean i don't think i'm going out on a limb here if that if you have a sexually that was going to be introduced to explain the perforation of the complaining witness hymen is actually more directly covered by the policy of the rape shield statute because it went to a specific prior act with a specific person other than reserving the possibility of the consent defense but also made clear the litigation the motion ruminate that they counsel was reserving the right to proceed on the defense of no sexual contact at all and that was the theory that was actually ultimately put before the jury and it's that context in which we should look at the prejudice analysis which is when we have these comparative diagnoses and we put them before the jury given the theory that counsel was a fiancee does this have a tendency just to undermine confidence and how come we're the jury would look at these comparative diagnoses and be able to draw the scientific information through the assistance of his attorney is true and then we look at that in the minds of the ultimate trial and say well if everything here is true and if the missing scientific evidence supports this claim as he seems to believe it has allege there's a question of the law but the state has suggested to this court that we're no better off in the trial court in determining whether or not there was i do will tell you this in this case and we have several facts that went before the trial court we have a number of times in the st louis was tested we know for a fact those records exist  obviously had to balance you know the statutes in thames whether or not there was a constitutional requirement you know that's another thing the parties haven't really discussed i'm not blaming anyone but you know this issue has  in most states actually almost identical to illinois rape shield states but i guess they have to say is there is there any case that you would suggest to us that would allow us to possible to contract it based on sexual times here i mean is there any measure if it is well i mean i'm not even talking about the actual since i'm talking about you know just this taking the ineffective assistance incubation period in transmission rate in his petition that claim is there that council failed to get that very information so we know that each patient period in the transmission rate is relevant but that's relevant to what is the strength of the inference drawn from the comparison between the negative