subpoena from the state court conviction the issue raised is ineffectiveness of counsel for failing to object to say have a dense that was presented by the state in an attempt to bolster the credibility of the complainant and also failure to object or rebut evidence that was used by the state that was false and they should have known it was admitted it was incorrect the court of appeals admitted it was incorrect and the district court below indicated it was incorrect what i think the state courts have problems with is the difference between a false statement and a lie they seem to believe that hansel could have believed that  trials a lot of hearsay objections that could be made are not made simply because it would be so easy to fix or it's not that important i can imagine a timely objection to was testimony about this activation and the prosecutions as ok will bring in somebody from a track from and if in less it was incorrect and credit issues so i don't know how conviction motion did not indicate that the reason he didn't object was the one that the court is identifying he simply overlooked the objection  nd the people who would have had the access to prove either the accuracy or the and accuracy of the hearsay statements where the state and the state had an opportunity to prove that accuracy and post conviction motion hearing and they chose not to putting it on us to say that some unidentified form you could pro refuse yes and prejudice as this is hearsay it is inadmissible so what impact did that have on the trial and the impact that it had on the trial well the activation number and the combined with the special privileges what that might just show is that number one somebody activated the phone and it was not mr hunt which so that gives us already somebody else who had a potential motive acted on a motive to attack the complainant in this case number two it shows that of the seventeen of the tracks phone calls were made when mr hyde which was in jail and could not have made those calls so once again we have somebody else who has a motive and is willing to act on the motive well if it means that certainly not a reasonable jury reasonably could reach that conclusion we're not talking about it situation in which the defense must prove absolutely one hundred percent that the defendant is innocent remember under strickland it's only a reasonable probability of a different result here when we had a trial is that the haven't suggested that he certainly could have and  that handles testimony about the special privileges was that in fact they had official information that he had access to and was using access to phones and what  would have had without that is a jury speculating that perhaps somehow some way he could have gotten access to phones we don't know how in other words just a feeling to follow the jury's or the jury instructions that you are to rely on the evidence in the case and not speculation now the evidence also that you're talking about with regard to the special privileges and also directly undermined haiku with his own testimony and therefore the credibility of all of his testimony i saying that here we have this evidence that directly contradicts i too went to his testimony that he did not have access that he did not activate the phone same thing with the underground testimony that was false  his denial and handles testimony claiming that you had made this statement admitting that he had made the statement about being better off with her underground defendant to have the opportunity it is possible but the trial attorney in this case is if they rejected that idea rejected that he simply did not consider using that evidence to the basically what this comes down to is the complaining witness testified that she identified how kuwait's and three areas one things under the circumstances the issues in this case really raised that go into the relative credibility of the two witnesses certainly could have happened impact on the jury and i see that my time has gone on and i thank you the court words instances where counsel proponents was not objective only reason but when their view they assess it for its impact on the outcome whether those instances of efficient performances had a reason what created a reasonable probability of a different counsel's performance and its probable impact on the outcome and i suggested it's difficult to find a more rural district court decision than the one we have here where judge and i think it's only reasonable to conclude or at least in the words of one can be rigor of fair minded jurist who to read that it's reasonable to conclude that this that all of these lower courts got it right obvious question of whether the information about the track phone was correct and whether someone could have been brought in from trap own yes defense counsel testified that he did not  and according to the prosecutor not he was not under oath but i but he was speaking as an author said the court the prosecutor told the court that we were prepared to bring in someone from trac fone at quite an expense way or the other on that but the judge said you know it's possible or it's reasonable for a defense attorney to want to streamline the trial and not make it in the state not to force estate have to bring someone in prolong this already very long trial protracted trial and therefore he let that hearsay go away a reasonably competent defense attorney could let that hearsay go and the prosecutor pointed out he didn't accuse consulate of lying under oath he said he probably forgot so long ago so i just want to bring that to the court's attention but again i think for this court to the the question is i think this was a couple of incidents in august of two thousand and twelve and there was a debate was about whether the complaining witness was at work or was called on her work phone if i recall correctly the state court reversed a couple of convictions based on the reliance on hearsay on this point that's correct and my question is why didn't that leave the effect of those errors in the reversal carry over to other charges particularly as they related to hensel's credibility evidence photographs and so whatever impact that that might have had the fact of whether she got that call on a work phone or on a cell phone and to think that that how that i mean i think mr hyde quince wants everyone to believe that that and the light about whether she got that call on the work phone or on the cell phone where it's very possible that it could be a mistake that it may have been bad recollection but regardless  regard to those two counts which his testimony to rectally related with regard to the others and the stocking count as well where there were so many other instances proving of stalking that even when you take these two courts and the district court saying the police officer gave false testimony and there being no relief  well i guess you know again we're not we're in a strickland analysis we're not in a straight due process analysis because that is forfeit so we're going to stricklin analysis so even assuming that those courts correctly found that the testimony was false and in idaho or incorrect you know false implies intentional wrongdoing and i think one could interpret it as a gradual evolution of his viewpoint but but the focus then is on prejudice was there reasonable probability of different result had he not testified falsely or and the truth being that the statement was made in his presence if he didn't say that he was there when coworkers were job joking about it and and certainly that so it again the focus is all right do we does it make is it reason we probable that all of these counts will change that the outcome will change if the testimony is that where he didn't say that but he was there when his coworkers were joking about it and he didn't tell them to stop  still muted sorry if i could just have one minute please all right thank you so you just made yourself again where we are yes and in any event the work phone issue that impacts all of the charges in the case and specifically impacts able to find her and attacker on the thirty to have two thousand and thirteen without that information there was no evidence that he knew where she lived and knew how to find her thank you thank you