which relates the cross examination questions of the of the prosecutor and the closing arguments support the district court's finding sole season issue in this case is whether or not the district court provided by oregon law by revised statutes section one sixty one one fifty five the state had to prove that he knew  the principal means for which the state the principal means the state employed in order to meet its burden of proof on aiding and abetting theory because his credibility was central to his defense they just said briefly touch upon the district court's factual findings as to the other evidence against titian and just to remind the court there's at least three factors to consider here the first two are the extent that's pretty hard to say with respect to this particular claim in light of all the evidence that was resample well i disagree i think if we look at what the magistrate's findings were on that issue there's only one relevant finding which was that regarding the pursuit was actually more trustworthy he was credible on that and not so as mentioned i think there is there really is nothing in the district court's findings that there was overwhelming evidence then let me just i appreciate your argument i mean i only speak for myself i but i think the first argument is it is probably a little bit difficult i am a little bit more actually describe the injury itself the other way is to describe the injury by way of the physical pain that the victim suffered in this case the prosecution believes its best and strongest i thought that that standard there was this juncture that the assault could be made out there was substantial pain or if there was and i'm forgetting the exact language my concern about whether he said it was store i'm looking at language that i think is that ninety seven to ninety eight or thereabouts in the trans where there's a question and i know it's difficult to put this in the terms that the law requires but physical injury means something that impairs your physical condition did the rock impair your physical condition for a while and the answer is it was sore for a couple of days now unlike the pain question that question is not a leading question when someone says did it impair your physical condition so why wouldn't it being sore for a couple of days if i'm correct in that testimony why would that be enough to satisfy i believe that the standard oregon law moment i'd like to reserve a little bit of time that's fine exactly i just have one question the photo that existed regarding the injury why was that not submitted by the a pallant to the federal court case and the federal court when he was trying to show prejudice right why wouldn't he have submitted the photograph which would show prejudice if there were no injury by your argument my recollection is that the state did not raise the alternative argument  question of what oregon law requires physical injury that was what was that issue with respect to second your degree assault charge at oregon revised statute one sixty one point so that is the definition that was at play in this case and with respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim that petitioner has made here what the district court relied on most heavily and his burden with respect to the strickland you've got to show projects and therefore you would have to have before the federal district court all of the evidence that was in front of the jury that terminal whether or not there was any a container which caused redness swelling and bruising that may very well be exactly what that other graph showed your and that's why you can't on this record mothers argument here because i felt that you just report quite frankly had it right that you rely on the photograph that the photograph plus the testimony of the officer officer look who took the bricklin requires that the fishing as part of the two prong tabs show question that simply didn't occur here so i don't think you really need to have really need to go looking for organ president although well it certainly this particular count i think there was evidence that could have that drink could have relied upon the question is is it reasonably probable and that determination can be made on don't know what it was and he should have produced it and and and that's the problem with the way this case was constructed in the federal district court you've got to show that that photograph along with the officers testimony wasn't enough in itself without but nonetheless you say it nonetheless and become it is the petitioner is murder and if the petitioner does not make out that wrong and i'm not aware of any case law i haven't looked for one frankly but i'm not aware of any case law that says that if the government fails to produce the entire record as wired by that rule the petitioner then is in a position not  to have to carry the burden with respect to this kind of thing where you've got a photograph that obviously goes sort of when to clarify one other thing is that in the argument before the jury at the end with the argument physical physical the notion that even if it was prima random but post arrest you have a quad one that is not true it's clear from white had and from united states supreme court case law i'm not sure that it's entirely you know there there is at least some suggestion that there were shots fired prior to the first stop that may have taken at least one tie but i i i'm not going to tell you that i know the record that well to answer that specific question i was just wondering if the record would indicate that the driver of the pursuing vehicle would have to know that a rifle was shooting tires  guys i don't have a case other than the case relied on by the magistrate which was a that's railed juvenile partner versus element a three or at two thirty eight in that case they conduct a little survey of other authority and in that they indicate that they have previously found that it's not a physical injury where an abrasion that last a few days is the only injury so to that extent the fact that it lasted a few days and the fact that mr has as old as said it was it caused him a sore a few days i don't think if it meets the test so what the state needed to prove again was lack shall be submitted and you think counsel for their argument