did several things first he argued guilt by association he raised the issue that this was a community and a culture that in which you could you being the jury could decide that mr beck but acted within ken to inflict great bodily injury basically because that's how these people and he started out early on in his closing by telling the jury and i quote in cases like this where there is an assault the act itself doesn't make sense and they can be hard for the state to deal with in situations like this because because we bring in a jury of twelve people who come from a background with something like this happening is forming and then he goes on to talk about  further on people are shy over looking at somebody the wrong way particularly in a culture where is defense counsel say the community are looking and where you have gang activity and gang involvement and that's that in the context you have to give him some reason read the transcript and i don't think any body even argue that this was a case where they were shooting at these people because they thought they were a member of a rival gang while it might be true though i can't really tell it's a one clear from the language and hurdle precisely what like happened colonel doesn't say that we're only going to  just says make a flat out statement the indications in washington related geisha rule does not bar federal court consideration and i think you would have to overrule pera wh intent the prosecutor made a number of arguments that all combined together in x symbiotically to really mislead the jury in a very fundamental way intending to inflict great bodily injury you take all of those things together the jury ends up hearing from the prosecutor who we recognize as someone whom juries pay more than usual attention to and get a really distorted view of crucial evidence about intent and intent is what led to this forty one year sentence here it's not that any shot and then  so his supplemental submissions did not make it to the court nor did his prosecutorial misconduct arguments make it to the washington supreme court on direct appeal now he did attempt to do it again in the personal or straight petition that it comes under postal i disagree with that with counsel's assessment of the effect of hurdle i believe in the pirtle case this court said that the washing supreme court improperly wide the related geisha arc of the facts of mr pearl's case  this and that was reason i was not intending to argue so much the procedural default issue because i realize there are two ways to the same destination here i believe the result is the same whether the court considers the merits of mr  on the procedural default issue that we've heard a lot today and we also read in mr vaclav as a brief about these horrible egregious outrageous i've seen nasty things that the prosecutor interesting to note that defense counsel who was representing mr baccarat who was present on the scene was there during real time did not see fit to object to any of these remarks that are now being characterized as being so sinister people in a car who get disrespected i think they describe it as mean mugging by the three victims and what's their reaction their first reaction to this perceived slight against their integrity and hearsay statement your honor and that was through the testimony of mr baka lot himself he recalled that statement having been made so that's where the that testimony came from we have khan show and or actually there were several different cultures involved in here the driver of the car so my understanding is that for it is caucasian i believe that the three victims in this case were african but i think that was a fair comment on a piece of evidence circumstantial evidence that came in during the trial this is what was the intent or the the motivation of the three people in the that these people who had just disrespected them just moments before that i needed to have some violence done to them and i think it's a fair comment on evidence that was properly admitted in trial and in the business end of the gun intended to inflict great bodily harm to the victims so i don't believe that there was anything improper at all in the prosecutor's discussion of what mr likely intent was by jumping out of the car pointing a gun in the direction of three victims and firing off two or three shots now that the standard of review as was pointed out earlier in one of the earlier cases is the narrow that we have to look at the record of the trial in the court does have that available as did the district court the jury instructions and in fact in this case the reminders to the jury that the arguments of counsel were not evidence and they were contrary to any evidence that was presented to the jury that they should disregard it and this court has commented that the arguments of counsel generally carry less weight with the jury than jury instructions do  substantial likelihood of prejudice standard that the washington court of appeals applied was undoubtedly a much more favorable standard to a criminal defendant like mr vaclav than the darden versus wainwright due process standard and i believe that if you compare the argument in this case with the argument in darden versus wainwright the argument in this case really pales in comparison and because of the deferential standard of review under evidence of intent based on membership in a gang or in this case is this culture and community argument and i think that doesn't meet the standard under darden the christopher are all thank you very much