attractive lawyer would try to prevent the jury from learning that mr moore was a convicted murderer since the nature of this prayer prediction was not relevant to proving his felon status and here counsel had an easy way to do that under this court's decision in walker pick counsel offered to stipulate to more spelling status the trial court was required to accept the stipulation and the name of the prior conviction would have  but instead of offering to stipulate counsel agreed with the misapprehension by both the prosecutor and the judge that the law actually required disclosing the nature of the prior conviction to the jury so when the jurors heard the evidence and were considering mr morse innocence or guilt for possessing a gun in the back of their mind they knew that he had been previously been convicted of the most serious and violent felony un law and one that involved taking another slight in this way the specter of his murder conviction and its inherently prejudicial nature loomed over the entire trial a claim strictly these facts show that council was and as this court knows strickland has two components deficient performance prejudice deficient performance in this case has that been seriously disputed before jury selection brought up the issue about disclosing the nature of the prior conviction and he asked the parties whether it should just advise the jury of the nature of the conviction or just that the defendant is convicted and it was the prosecutor who answered it's the nature of the kid conviction that's told to the jury and then defense counsel agreed with the prosecutor statement the judge also confirmed well that's my understanding of the law just so the record clearly shows that counsel's failure to exclude the prior conviction evidence was not based on strategy but rather on a misapprehension of the law that was shared by the prosecutor and the judge  turning to prejudice strictly require that we show there was a reasonable probability that the results of the proceedings in this case would have been different if the jury had that heard that moore had been convicted of murder and here there are really two factors that conviction but clearly that's a fact a kidnapping or in this case we know from walker that this type of prior conviction evidence generally has little probative value and creates a high risk of on your prejudice  final it's essentially other crimes and the supreme u s supreme court at all she defined what unfair prejudice means in this context it's the capacity of the evidence to lure the jury in defining  charge offense or worse it calls for preventative conviction even if the jury believes that good defended its moment might have been momentarily innocent of the crime he's on trial for and here we have both the bad character reasoning and the whole worse or worse scenario because the jury was only supposed to decide whether mr morgan knowingly possessed the gun found in the clothes council of this car his murder conviction recently been released from prison and now he was found with a gun in his car the capacity of this happens to be appropriately influenced the jurors decision to persuade them to convict mr moore as a preventative measure totality of the evidence before the jury and that's because a verdict of course only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by counsel's error than one where the evidence is overwhelming against the man but at the same strictly explain that prejudice is a stay on bullish even where counsels error cannot be shown by a preponderance of the outlands trip determine the outcome of it to determine the outcome in other words even when the chance of a different result is less than  testimony i mean that one word that said they did not look at the substance of this testimony they did not look at it he had is going to officer his credibility and they completely ignored mr moore's testimony and that this testimony of this is his witness cheri wa now by contrast justice folded in his pant did consider all the evidence presented at trial and found that it was close for that there was a reasonable probability that conviction evidence to the scales against mr moore and justice holders was right this is a close case it involved a credibility contest between officer him and his version of events and the version presented by mr moore and his witness this falls officer can testify that he pulled mr moore over for the traffic violation of failing to signal within one hundred feet of a stop sign and speeding he said that as he pulled up behind the car he saw mr moore he claim mr moore made a movement for the cent there was no audio for it because officer hand and knowing that it was malfunctioning just decided not to get in his justice holder's found without the audio there was no corporation for this statement healing that denied being nervous and then he said he never told officer hand there was a gun in the car because he didn't know there was a gun in the car and shiri walls explain why he wouldn't own the gun was purpose she had accidentally left it in his car the day before when she borrowed it tomorrow and she literally brought the receipts she brought the receipts that verify the purchase of the gun and that the gun was hers she also testified that she did not realize that she had left the gun in the car until the next day and that she had never told mr moore that she put the gun is hurt so in the end this case presented the classic closely case the jury was faced with contradicting either side and they were to cast with deciding who whose version to believe so telling the jurors that mr moore had been previously convicted of murder unjustifiably unjustifiably made the violent than the offense charge it's most serious felony it's exactly the type of conviction that you don't want the jurors to think speculate about or think that the defendant committed so the prejudice unfair prejudice that attaches to the naming of the conviction is far greater than just telling the jurors that you know the defendant stipulates that yes he was a follower he's it per se strategy it's always going to depend on the facts of the case so i suppose if if there is some type of strategy and i'd be hard pressed to find one in the case of murder that counsel wants the jurors to know that there is a murder the defender was previously convicted of murder than you would look to see if that was a reasonable status strategy within the context of the case i have to say that this there would be i cannot think of a scenario where that would be ok specially a murder an articulate reason you were always have to still show that it was prejudicial under strickland the nd prong and that's again going to depend on the facts of the case i suppose maybe in a case where the evidence was completely overwhelming against not addressing your primary we can we say your primary but yes that's correct ok also did i hear you say you're here and i can't remember exactly  conviction made the evidence prejudicial in walker the prosecutor referred to the prior conviction by name when it was defining the charges against the define it here the prosecutor did the same in walker the prosecutor further and it just reaches over pulls up mr morice shirt inserts digging into his left pocket now nobody testified instead that because he found nothing there was no reason to testify to that but it does show that you know officer can detain or search without necessarily having the reasons to do so i guess i just want to say that ultimately then the issue of whether he can cover the defendant because of this alleged statement or because of whether he told  mr moore that he was doing it proctor says officer safety is a credibility issue for the jury says i and it certainly didn't take the case from close to overwhelming and again your eyes with that i think we've shown that