to make sure that i understand the brady argument that you're really travelling on the in the brief i understood you to be making two arguments one is that there's you know sort of the contrary to a clear or unreasonable application of argument about the determination of the facts that were presented because in this case to be prevented or supplied defense counsel with very detailed discovery disclosure so way they were at trial in specifically identified a couple of thing that had been added and he also identified something that had been taken out his handwritten notes so the notion that the back finding with me based on his lines also and i don't i don't think it's much about i we're not relying on a very heavily but there was not that report those two reports were not in the trial counsel file and that  circumstances surrounding those rewards and the fact that they are not listed and i should just point out that that report by f t l e annulments is issued four days prior to jury selection the questions that the trial can build asking witnesses also appear that he does not know the information in these reports and he's in the federal district court did you know that some of his questioning seemed like that i mean it's because the prejudiced wrong i guess i'm a brady but i thought that i read in the record that the information about the hair was known to the city council because council had learned that during a deposition of a crime scene at mission granted it's not the report but it seems like is it not the same general information and if it's the same information where would the prejudice be that the st question the nd question is if it indicates that he actually did know that and have that information then that takes us to the next question which is the strickland questions so i'm sort of gotten a lot of questions there but if you want to mine gone through them that would be great new problem is i didn't practice this by saying as to the brady issue it was know during the deposition of the crime scene analyst i'm sorry the crime scene technician who was you know at the agreed department trial counsel burke asking him questions is there and in that exchange be the crime scene technician says oh they just finished them here and now the today or you know within a few days and they just called and told me about it and so he asks is there anything that matches and nurse there's some confusion about what the the answer is no when then  doesn't seem to really understand it he's talking about matches to gerald's or imagine something else you know from the team and so there is some confusion there but then the important key in that depo is trial counsel says well agree that he should have known problems or should have known if there is a diligence requirement then he certainly should have known you knew that they went into the samples from n y n boy and hair and fingerprints and all those things so he knew that there was and now it's happening and so yes if there is any diligence that is you know he should have taken he should have went and track down the information the prejudice there doesn't show someone else in there and in this case he's you have just so much forensic evidence in trouble didn't see gallup an expert on that and didn't seek out an expert on anything other than a sense it just again been that bench notes are always more detailed in terms of what the examiner in seeing and writing down so you know i don't know that there's any particular thing in there that's know could have could have done some things where they had or would be not just with the report with the new notes in that is why we didn't present the evidence of mr james two with a criminalist and deals with all of these issues sort of  in the big picture he doesn't his boat is is the blood spatter but he does understand all of these criminal and big type issues and so he was he did have decided these are significant for this particular case was there's no evidence the state did a shoddy job and there's just there's no evidence and the state courts that that was what his strategy was the problem that i'm having is that that does not explain to me the fact that he argued that why he would not have elicited evidence of that i mean it makes sense with respect to the standard now because he used the fact that there was the evidence there to actually suggest that that the fingernail belonged to another suspect as opposed to the victim here but it doesn't make sense to  from the standpoint of much of the other evidence such as the fact that it turned out that there was that the final testing of the blood on the shoe turned out not to return a positive test on that or the fact that hair that was not mr gerald was or the victim was found in the victim and all those kinds of things which are evidence that it doesn't add up then you know there's not there's not enough evidence here and it's consistent with his team why what is the strategy any strategy behind not putting that information materials that defendant knowledge should have been put on or he could try to do what we call the standard closing argument and try to highlight the circumstantial evidence of the species that way that was the choices to me  so better to poke holes and get the benefit of the opening of the bottle on those things than to be sandwiched in between the pressure on absolutely everything in addition to that because we are under paintings i may have just meant can you help me out and tell me where i can find that and if it's not in there can you tell me what source of law would provide that yes this is something been present at the house because none of the circumstantial evidence well because we don't the blood doesn't match up the hair doesn't match up with that or or if he had been present at the house and somebody else had also been involved you know if the other person had been the one who actually killed the victim a jury might not return of going to the vast right i mean why  particular problem and additional for possessing except that maybe the reason there is no evidence is because people didn't put it on right i mean we do know that there was a handful of hair that didn't match the defendant and didn't match the and decent reason why a jury might think if it knew that that there was another person involved whether that was the only person involved or another or you know the primary person involved or the accomplice that confidence is undermined and that you can view with evidence that was not presented and that the jury never heard in this case you have compelling powerful evidence within them of where on why was the unreasonable for the state courts to conclude that it was reasonable for the trial counsel here to make a vigorous closing argument where he poked holes in the state big yes right and then if you're looking at the characteristics that he did to the standards they often do not come anywhere near the descriptions he's giving and that's why are we saying that in certain circumstances you do need to see those notes and they offering you a better understanding of the actual evidence or you do need to take the deposition you have to do something to be able to understand these comparison you know not and i agree