forensic scientists about the nature of the tests conducted consuls failure was simply a demonstrated fundamental misunderstanding of the d n a he told the trial court pretrial that there was a match on semen even though nothing in the record indicates that the testimony that there was anything that showed that substance was semen any different from the testimony that was given by the us brains of scientists counsel then went on in closing arguments to argue to the jury there was no other evidence and that's what the cross examination would i feel so he needed to do research on the subject to prove his worth this and you're claiming that her ripping her testimony would have been undermine respond to some of these questions we don't have what her response would have been who she might have but really well said all the points you just now making that sakura isn't that why is not identified which semen was a match she would have said simmons identified of the other tests so counsel asking hard the differences between the tests or the significance of the absence of this much as i would have let the deliberations which is why they asked the question he d evidence in this case turned on the credibility of one witness forces the other that mr westerfield would not have been found guilty similarly council provided ineffective assistance when he fails to present the evidence on the relevance testimony at trial but counsel still showed up at the hearing and prepared to receive the state argues that what he tried to do in asking for stipulation was well worth a try that's true however he should have had a backup plan he should have properly prepared for that hearing because he it was highly unlikely that the state would concede after having filed a motion in the minute to exclude the information and having argued at the hearings a week before the one that in which kathleen testified that they still want shakes and cries uncontrollably if counsel had been prepared he would have been allowed to cross examine how back to trial and the jury would have had the opportunity to weigh her testimony that she shakes cr error based on the evidence or the lack of evidence the trial counsel provided trunk was was asked to provide as there quite put it i believe the court said that the quote was looking for personal experience or something else to it with a degree effect just as he did with their belief i once she had brought up that it affects have billeted to fall asleep the judge would have allowed him to cross examine the trial because he would have seen the potential of the side effects of the medication she had ready herself uncontrollably sweating which i similar to testimonials given later on describing her as hysterical so suddenly you would have shown the relevance of having this information before the jury for the jury to decide whether that was but w how emotional state that night was a result of an assault as a result of her mental illness and medication or lack thereof her in this case the strategy by defense counsel which is evident in his closing argument is that defendant was naive in a statement to police and should have just told him the truth that all the sex was in this case is that the evidence you listed to throughout the trial who operates a defense of consent the victim failed to report elicited that the victim failed to report this crime for twelve hours that no one heard the victim screams the cut on her lab here could have been from defendant's fingernails or self inflicted defendant came over with her permission having taxes that he missed having sex with her any marks sure his forehead or  were not visible and there were no tears in her underwear or night gown all of these facts it was sitting by defense counsel cooperated his defense of consent in this case if defense counsel had brought out the lack of distinction between saliva and semen when in cross examine the forensic scientist he still doesn't eliminate the possibility of semen being present so given that he's not if the saliva is present and there's evidence that he bit her then he might have been convicted of a one count anyway maybe the better strategy is to attack both counts by letting all the sex was consensual so these are thought processes the defense  have had in this case and i would i would argue that that was a strategy that was implemented in this case that that all the sex was consensual the defendant is asking this court to speculate that a different  jury's determination of the credibility contest was defendant evolving statement to the police the overall consistency of the victim's statement the bite mark to the victim's flavia the victim's demeanor her testimony the court even offered her kleenex the victim's demeanor when reporting the offense and the testimony concerning the text messages the state would argue that the evidence to establish the relevance of the mental health diagnosis and prescription medications of the victim the state would argue that fence counsel attempt attempted to establish relevancy enable to create relevance where there was no time there is nothing in the record that any of the victim's mental health diagnoses or medications that she was on affected her perception of events or her ability to recall events it is not enough to establish a possibility that she might have been affected defense counsel would have had to establish that she was affected in order to establish relevance the victim in this case testified any cross examination related to her mental illness would not have been the sure testimony the victim testified that her medications completely control her illness and that the medications do not affect her ability to observe recall the evidence presented at trial cooperate says as the victim reported in detail what had happened to the police and to the nurse at the hospital later that day there is nothing to suggest that any of her mental illness or not the only evidence against the defendant which included the photograph and testimony concerning the tear in her lap me and her demeanor when reporting the offense her demeanor when testifying to cooperate in statements to others and the taste testimony concerning the text messag our concede that the evidence presented on count two which is the penis the sex organ count was not closely balance but contested nature of that evidence an argument to evidence on the elements of the facts is along with the credibility but the court also stated that a review court must evaluate the totality of the evidence and in this case in particular the evidence is  case overall it's not so closely balance the victim statements to officer for garia emergency room nurse o'neill and detective cycle quadri her testimony officer for garia review the text but did not penetrate her with his fingers he stuck his finger in her and he did not bite his statement was there were major in consistencies and it was not definitely not a may have tilted the balance in the state's favor we did the jury and we did not have the benefit of what we know now and have the defense counsel challenge that evidence then we would not be arguing that it was closely so that's basically but the defendant doesn't have the burden the trial the states does he would not have to do any such or make such an explanation and the state and the minutes in the semen or other arguing against the d n a s coming from saliva or semen as opposed to just leaving the evidence without any challenge again does nothing in terms of harming mr westfall in having to explain why she would make up the eliminating the semen and crossing off the d n a that's why he had to cross examine both of them he had to cross examine on the forensic testing and then he had to cross examine on the relevance of the d n a being found the jury's verdict was based on the d n a that's the key evidence that the jury used to determine the credibility based on that final question to argue that it was just simply everything else but the d n a is to ignore that final question which is very important again miss  hysterical behavior that was reported again could have been explained by the mental illness that was not allowed to be across the trial because trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting it properly at the caring simply not enough evidence and if counsel had properly challenge the evidence this would have been clear to the jury which would have made the finding that the d n a evidence was not lucid and mrs edwards was not credible and therefore