rose from to use you say that that that he was it was defective performance and your prejudice because he state court lawyer didn't do more testing in the state court that's right yes  the government says that as i read their brief that that that was a understandable strategic choice i kind of tried to keep track of all the different stories from m valentino of what transpired over time and i gave up and the the upshot of that was that maybe trial counsel did the same and trial counsel decided that if i do this have lost the ability to argue that the police investigation was unfair which he did with some force in the trial court so while wyden under the circumstances that a valid decision he simply has not worked fast and fast and it was just it was negligence on his it was by no means a strategic decision made he was forced into that scenario where he have a decision to make about him are going to go forward  prejudice on the performer when i lost it that's correct three in court would take that's right so that but drug trial lawyers we give a lot of sway to what they're doing in the middle of the fight and then after leaving the hotel in an attempt to cover up what he did that he shot himself in the front right as a as a cover up see and that theory was also braggin there are lots of theories presented but the only hear it a single shot is not the only theory that's been presented that this theory i think is what the jury must have found and that's really the only other plausible that they did find also  bruise order of anything i mean does it at all prove where the d n a did it came from the bullet as opposed to when he walked around in the socks either before or after the shot happened it strongly motion and it shows that all the d n a is hersh and undermines his own testimony undercut seem a think that we don't want that there would need to be a drone not know there would need to be something in the or so i just wanted to know to the court that one instance where the very st chance he had to tell the story his story to the jury he did not say that the gun was unseen in the time that it was discharge there's also inconsistency in his testimony same as whether it was his gun or somebody else's gun that that's correct your honor he told detectives at the time of the rest interview that he repeatedly referred gun as my gun and he hotel is is is evidence that he is he was not her circumstantial evidence he had been shot that's correct rahner and i think that the calmest point was we don't think that he actually was hurt or he came to her while he was in the courtroom but if you try to appeal in law well i wouldn't say that i well i mean you did last year you tried to appeal it and the supreme court turned you down the spirit of virginia only beaches questions of cross air if it is going frequently shorthand the a t p a standard as some sort of deferential standard when in fact actually a burden of proof that the petitioner not the respondent must must bear and pursue the very language that would have to deny him the op she is argue that in fact it belongs to me at not only that but given the fact that the victim in this case was prostitutes and that there was the testimony that she had a boyfriend it wouldn't have been his resources his time and in this case he said there were a lot let me do it only direct your specifically and in your brief you make the argument that the testing that's now before the court been done that that would have deprived defense counsel of the opportunity to argue his defense counsel did that there was an unfair investigation the police  investigation because they failed to do the testing same thing with toothbrushes that there would have deprived counsel of the opportunity to argue that there were two brushes in the room was full reasonable to assume one of walkman that supports the defendant story but the opposing counsel says that the defense counsel said at some point later on in the proceedings i just made a mistake i should have gone on and done the testing doesn't that neg aid the strategic decision argument will not go to performance and you were instead of prejudiced your honor he made that statement only with respect to the testing of the s from her original story meanwhile valentino's account changed over time internally inconsistent at times the five concepts more over his flight from the scene of the shooting could be  there's no evidence i mean opposite of taken as a given that there was a bullet at some juncture that intermixture valentino's foot and you say that may or may not be true he pointed to a picture of his deep do you months starting with that question where in the record we could find that evidence that you would say supports the idea that he was shot in the foot not that the buddha had a hole in it  that his foot had a bullet enter it he said i'm saying i'm trying to distinguish how do i know he was shot in the foot as opposed to the booth was shot independent of this but i