by the state post convention court of the test articulated by the united states supreme court in strickland washington and i also want to comment on the district court's denial of the certificate of appeal ability concerning the due process issue because i feel that in fact the district court held mr de higher standard of proof than is required by section twenty two fifty three the question becomes what was happening with respect to mr dane what was his understanding at that time concerning the activities of his counsel what was his understanding of the issues th statements contained in the record of the state court trial proceedings in post conviction review mr dan argued that each state trial court counsel was ineffective due to her failure to have the transferred materials but they didn't have all the guns to test with your i view that it contained shiniest somewhat of a red herring from the standpoint that although there was references to three different gun i think it was referred to as a beretta and its history are both traced to the testimony of mr dering himself rather than from any other independent source so dealing with what that trial attorney in front of her and what she confronted at the time that she came into the case i saw five weeks in advance i think it was of the trial date she had before her two items of physical evidence she had before  that were physical exhibits that were going to be utilized ultimately in the trial proceedings as they were utilized for the purpose of arguing that these are the items that are already in play with respect to supporting the testimony  weren't they tested by the state initially but they weren't tested the state trial attorney and the opportunity clearly to initiate a test and part of what is happening here and i focusing on an aspect of this case that had nothing whatsoever to do with the elements of strickland there's no discussion of strickland or the problems the two prongs of strickland the reasonable conduct of the attorney extended colloquy with stewart in a quotation the judge quote patiently explain those order might be able to generate some contradictions and they were not for the discussion there were in fact three separate stewart in many instances wanted to go to trial in mr deng's case we have a quick and hurried colloquy of the trial court judge stay do you understand do you understand and we have not one mention these guns or in fact the attorney made that argument in her closing it's not in the excerpts record but in volume three pages two forty three and two forty four that's exactly the argument she made was well gee if they really think that he'd get this victim in the face with a gun the state should be testing to see if there's blood on them and they didn't do that so it's a time tested honored strategic decision if you don't do testing there was a huge risk if she had in fact assuming she had time for to doing the testing even if we assume she had time i think the district court's decision that she simply did not act on reasonably by not taking steps to have these guns tested for anything physical evidence was not unreasonable case about how good is the colloquy stewart premie simply talks about that it's not a constitutional violation to have to choose one constitutional right over the other and in fact he wasn't forced to do that here at all he simply chose to w that's probably true but in this case i think they made perfectly clear to petitioner the important piece which was you wonder stand that your attorney wants more time they could do a better job for you if she had more time i don't think the court is required to go into that it would be predictable that with this type of injury there would be a blood transfer and the absence of it at least would be corroborative mr bangs contention that he used his first striking