whatsoever and in so doing do much petitioner your average middle aged woman with no criminal history whatsoever to conviction and life imprisonment trial counsel traded away the admissibility of harold or inners videotaped shot me a statement that it turns out the prosecutor didn't really want to use any way trial counsel agreed to this trade with no investigation into the substance of what he was trading for then he tried to slough off the responsibility for this uninformed including to the effect it wasn't even made in the first place and several of the individuals also in the helicopter with harold who were close to him never even heard the statement made and your recent prejudice the a found that the prosecutor was anxious to keep mr arnault videotaped testimony from the jury and we know from this court's decision in saying versus pretty that the prosecutor's admission of the importance of a minute evidence is clearly significant  never have received what you expect a permanent evidentiary hearing as far as the choice made by the defense counsel well actually your honor i think given that the district court found their declarations to be uncontroverted which means that they're taking to be true  counsel's actions were reasonable but rather to determine whether the state court reasonably determined that there was no strickland violation essentially opponents argue she got a raw deal or a bad trade she says her attorney should have more rigorously s make a critical strategic choice without investigating and that causes prejudice stricklin there i think we're still going investigate there's no declaration akeley he didn't investigate there was no allegation by any expert that he didn't investigate necessarily in every case call for investigation every time if it's reasonable without investigation it's reasonable so it's my position that that the deal was reasonable whether or not he investigated because he wasn't giving up much  page fifty five in my opinion a videotape was a very damning it was very damning evidence against the prosecution and fifty's i thought the net benefit the prosecution was not great enough to justify me using the mixed bag or you know arguably some evidence come in the jury hears that you know that the victim identified is his shooter the flight personnel all all of them either more sense if you investigate it and say well this is pretty bad have a point is you have to look at what's in the mind of defense counsel with the prosecutor was going to do the evidence is relevant is not relevant in hindsight it come in arguably it's not admissible but you know that's that's not quite something i'm here to argue because i think i think it's tangential the videotape has marginal use to him this case just to show that he had a good marriage closing argument that you know we have no motive here so you know mark marginal uses my argument had a negative implications which are placing her where she was placed after the shot portions of the videotape that had her standing right in the doorway which is probably where the shooter was right after the shot was fired and then there were other portions of the transcript where she was in bed with him when the when the shot was fired saying the same videotape he says i don't know all over the place from back and forth so once again it had marginal use and negative implications in the other hand he had a statement directly implicating his