against lawrence as our next case for argument this morning he was the centerpiece of the opening and the defense's star witness well right but most of those references had to do with the fact that he was the shooter right not the fact that he was going to be a witness for the defense before of the eighteen had to do with the explicit expressed probably right so yes all the rest doesn't really you know they don't matter what we're focusing on are the the promises that counsel made to the jury that they would hear from jenkins honor what the quantity of references to mr jenkins goes to his how memorable he was and whether the jury would have been able to recall him after the promise was broken and the case went to the jury the following morning he so the question is whether the representation the defense counsel made in opening statement that the jury would hear from jenkins in your client's favor and then something changed and then a record was made about what changed to that he was no longer going to be called because he was not going to be a favorable witness in that he would not testify in your client's favor and your client signed off on that record so why are we here your honor in several other cases including the hanssen case the defendant acceded to the advice of counsel i understand that you're relying on the hampton case for a per se rule that if the defense lawyer refers to somebody in the opening statement that person has to be what how does hampton benefit you given the language of twenty two fit which says that relief is available only when the state court while it's clear law clearly established by the supreme court of the united states we think very highly of our decisions but we are not the supreme court of the united states what supreme court decision establishes the per se rule that you want us to you your honor if we are not advancing the theory that this is a contrary to case under which the same set of facts produces a different offices look twenty dollars to fifty four d uses the supreme court to modify both clearly established and an on reasonable application  certainly does not establish that rule strickland establishes a rule that the overall quality of the representation soup to nuts matters but you are asking us to look at the overall quality of the representation you're asking us to look at one thing in which you say as a person a rule there is no per se rule to be found in strictly so i ask again what your honor neither harrington director of art cullen peepin holster impose that requirement which is it in essence equivalent to the alkyd standard in a qualified immunity case this court has never applied that in an unreasonable application case to our knowledge and indeed if this court is thinking about language of the statute you are relying to the extent i can trigger it out on decisions of the th circuit and whenever court of appeals relies on its own decision to justify collateral ripped against a state judgment it gets summarily reversed usually in pretty nasty decisions by the supreme which is ask essentially where did those people go to law school can't they reach your briefed also mentions the text of twenty two has not one word i'm giving you the opportunity to try to meet the statute you're on a grid given the importance of this issue at this is something that the court is thinking we've asked for the opportunity said to submit additional briefing no it's too late for that you have to your honor the our position is that the ed to standard has not changed since hanson and it was the the ending there any supreme court decision you are relying on want strickland which does not establish any per se rule is there any other no your honor because we are not asking for a per se rule you certainly are not i am launching everything the lawyer did for him that's what strickland calls because the broken promise under these circumstances was so damaging in it and this is the lesson of hampton your honor that hampton counts for nothing just citing hampton in this case invites some reversal to keep parallel is that there was no additional evidence produced in favor of mr wilkins case and under those circumstances the inherent prejudice of the broken promise is  free to contradiction undermine that the petitioners own case that's textbook ineffective assistance to fish your performance and prejudice pringle good morning and may please the court i'm assistant attorney general jason kriegel for respondent and just make a start with a brief point about hampton because even hampton does not establish a per se rule that an attorney cannot make a promise in the changed course what hempton says explicitly is that it's unreasonable to abandon the promise for reasons that were apparent at the time the promise  and of course we don't know on the record that was before the state court even what counsel's reason was for deciding not to call mr jenkins and the reason we don't know is because we really i thought it was agreed between the parties with jenkins was extraordinarily unreliable and kept changing his story about what he would say perfectly believable that it one time co fought he would exculpate him by the time trial by the time the time came to do it jenkins was saying the opposite well it certainly seems from based on counsel's opening discovery and so under circumstances like that where he showed diligence this court will typically allow additional evidence to be gathered in the center and also i might i might add that we we do know from the record counsel's reasons for changing his mind with respect to mr jenkins his testimony and just assuming for purposes of argument that it was every reason a bull characterization of mr jenkins charged with the same crime but before he pled out the tension to implicate mr wellborn and also the the other dimension of that is that it gives rise to fear of impeachment and critically both of those bits of information would have been well known to counsel before he made a decision to announce in his opening statement that mr jenkins would testify unequivocally four times and with that knowledge there was no strategic advantage whatsoever to back himself into a corner like that so if the court has no further questions will rest on the briefs and ask that the court reverse and and with directions t