unreasonable and for two contrary application of the stricken prejudiced test because it made no effort to weigh any of that evidence on either side let alone consider what the impact of the improper comments on mr hill silence were that evidence that was a minute a court merely listed all of the evidence in one paragraph introduced on either side of this observation within the context of mr collins defense as well as the weakness of the state's evidence here we don't even have the court in any way a particularly in what  comments were isolated there was a significant amount of other evidence that your client was guilty and he identified the testimony of gray and martin in the child victim that the jury acquitted your client on the other charges why is that andris ball application of strickland to the court give a fair amount of detail and identify those four re how is that reasonable application and it sounds like you're saying the court should have waited more should have analyzed it more but that's not what we look at with deference well the issue is that it didn't wait at all it didn't say anything about the strength of the fund its case for the strength of the prosecution's case it just said there was a lot of evidence for example and again i would rely heavily on the tal afar case where there was a recognition of what the nature of the prejudice but no effort to lay it to strickland talks about how if there needs to be this way because an error where there's overwhelming evidence of guilt ok it's not going to create prejudice but when you know the balance is a little or the scales are more balanced it could very of he was convicted of having sexual contact with a child on the way from the child's mother's home to his own home while they were in of a van together it's evidence that something you know that a sexual assault occurred was the fact that the girl called home and was all upset well it doesn't make any sense why would this sexual assault consider that the nature of the prejudice went to the nature of the defense which is defense once that this physical evidence once was planted on the underwear and that you know that defense depended on the media pregnancy and even that he knew she was much more invested in the relationship and he was he allowed her to correct his sermon being really could do that you know i would say you know you know when we're talking about these kinds of crimes you know there are people who do crave things that are people who do very unusual things you know and it is not you know we live in a big country there are people you know who will possibly save sperm you know the way that you know mr phil believes that you know the mother of the child did so it's certainly you know that was that was one of the challenges of the defense but you know she was allowed to he should have known how to make that defense without also having to contend with the prosecutor improperly commenting on his silence and his failure to do exactly what what happened in the toilet case that contrary to what opposing counsel said the state did not concede deficient performance at the state level the state argued that there was not division performance however the state court of appeals simply decided to its decided that this case could begin and unprejudiced that is also what the district court acknowledged and that is our position is well this court can can basically begin an end on the prejudice promise strickland and since we don't need to go further we should stepping back very just for a nd i will say something that i know this already you know is he vs is a very extreme remedy it's there to protest against lawless state action and it is there to make a state court conviction and criminal proceedings aren't so agree just as to actually be in conflict with the united states supreme court precedent defining our constitutional rights with that in mind he is only available  if he can establish that all reasonable jurists would agree that the wisconsin court of appeals decision conflicts with the united states supreme court precedent and still can't do that on this record in this case here every judge that has a value weighted bills claim has agreed to the bill has failed to establish sufficient prejudice to warrant relief and most importantly here the wisconsin court of appeals applied strickland and reasonably determined that the prosecutor's comments did not affect the the jury's verdict and in so doing consistent with strickland the court looked at the totality of the trial and this is  point that opposing counsel brings up a lot saying that the court the state court misapplied the prejudice problem simply because it did not list or cite or compare every piece of evidence for a multi day trial  that is not what's required here what the court did was completely consistent with strickland because what the court did is look at the trial as a whole and specifically identified elements of the trial that that related to its conclusion  it noted that this was a multi day trial twenty witnesses d n a evidence found on the victim's undergarments and with all that in mind the court concluded that even if the prosecutors comments were violation there wasn't a substantial likelihood of a different result and in fact the court said they were they were confident that it did not affect the verdict one of the pieces of evidence that the court considered and  this court touched on during opposing counsel argument was the actual verdict and i think that's actually a pretty important piece of the record that supports the state courts decision in the state court recognized that the jury here acquitted mr phil on the repeated acts charge repeated acts of sexual contact and only convicted them on the charge for which there was d n a evidence and what i think is reasonable is the court's conclusion that that really shows with this case was about this case had nothing to do with the prosecutor's brief and isolated comments bills what bill did or did not tell investigators this case came down to the evidence came down to the d n a evidence in this case and the verdict in this case supports that and and as part of the record then this all supports the court of appeals terminations that mr they'll simply did not show a substantial likely put of a different result and that's what strickland requires not a conceivable different result a substantial state's perspective there are there are there are a lot we can go into depression before that but but as this court has noted in in in several cases where a case can be disposed of on prejudice it should be and that's what the state court of appeals did now one other thing i would just mention again i mentioned a little bit earlier but but opposing counsel mentioned that the state seemed to imply the state conceded deficient performance that's not the case below  the state did argue that there was no deficient requirement in this case as we have on appeal here and the basis of that argument really is the mocking or hearing testimony where we have a mock  and we have a post conviction court that expressly finds that defense counsel made a conscious decision not to object so as to not call attention to the comments even if we don't really like counsel is sufficient support for that finding to make it within those bounds of reasonable that were that are under at purview right now so if they specialize in that given the mock your hearing testimony will cannot show division performance either because his attorney gave a viable reasonable trial strategy for not objecting to the testimony of the but the prosecutor and so those are and you know i would gladly answer more questions but if your performance but again from our perspective this should end of prejudice so unless the court has additional questions for me on that