the district court but the district court did grant a certificate of appeal ability to issues whether or not the prosecutor the state court prosecutor at trial improperly commented upon mr pittman try to remain silent and whether the prosecutor in her closing argument improperly opined regarding typical grooming behavior the parties appear to agree on the appropriate standards of review and in the broadest terms the state  appellate court identifies the proper rules for evaluating nice constitutional errors mr pitman of course argues that the state appellate court reached the wrong conclusion on these federal constitutional protects against the prosecutor's actions in a state court trial that are fundamentally unfair in this case my right we're dealing with the state prisoner and you will federal that the prosecutors comment that mr pittman actually relatively lengthy portion of our closing argument about mr pitman's behavior towards twenty towards children his interaction with children the evidence at trial to support this expert opinion and it was particularly egregious since the washington state supreme court has excluded grooming evidence from trial the children which was supported by the testimony of some of the other adults in the community so it was not just this game she and this is that you are for nineteen to four twenty she went  and for ninety earth three ninety three so she went on to talk about the fact that he spent a lot of time with children and he told her you are gross just to children  and she pointed out that one of the adults had said that his betake that he should not make these kind of inappropriate comments around children and he didn't stop then she goes on to characterize this behavior a that she allegedly played with the eleven year old victim here as typical grooming behavior for children for people who prey upon children socially inserting her opinion that he was a pedophile this was again one improper under introduction of testimony the profile kind of evidence regarding grooming is inadmissible in washington courts so the prosecutor knew or should have known that the term grooming was particularly problematic or not under the task force by this court this was a case in which there was no evidence to corroborate that of the complaining witness there was no forensic evidence supporting that that pittman didn't testify so you have to show that that comment is a violation of law clearly established by the supreme court and i just like what we would do if we were thinking about  court i'm aware of federal law clearly established by the supreme court that would proscribe a direct comment like you just argued like you didn't testify but i'm not aware of any law established by the supreme court that would prescribe the comment made here well i mean that's a big distinction because of the stand your honor i think there are street us supreme court cases that prohibit the kind of con comment made here i agree that it requires some interpretation because of course it's rare that prosecutors repeat precisely the same kind of comments in every case but in way to improperly conclude that the defendant silence could be used against you thank you addressing the last point that was raised by petitioners counsel the doyle cases in the grid case cited by petitioners deal with a comment on the defendants posed miranda silence where a defendant is  that they have a right to remain silent and in the prosecutor comments on the silence following miranda and the failure to to raise any defense to the police officers investigating the case this case and the test set forth i'm not aware either of any supreme court case that talks about indirect comments griffin discussed direct comments either by the prosecutor or in the griffin case and instruction by the words we would be getting close to looking at the argument as a whole the prosecutor was going through the instructions to the jury talking about the burden of proof instruction another instructions from the prosecutor on page three eighty four the excerpts record started talking about this issue and said you as the instructions again tell you are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses there's this isn't a case with a lot of witnesses there are only two people who actually saw the crime i'm paraphrasing allen told us what happened and then the prosecutor goes on for seven pages explaining why alan is a credible witness based on the evidence presented at trial and then on page three ninety one the prosecutor concludes again you are the judges of alan's credibility and i maintain that he was extremely credible that comment that them that they now object to not going to the defendant's failure to testify it was going to this is why alan is a credible witness and you should believe him based on the evidence presented and again these were not objected to and while that's not dispositive i great evidence that the statements were proper and if the statements do not render the trial unfair and the state court applied the correct standard under this court's case law and under gri was uncorroborated just simply the testimony of the victim that's not true the victim testified and specifically explained all the facts of the crime that occurred to him there w also testimony from other witnesses explaining that his story has remained the same there may have been minor inconsistences but the actual facts of the crime remain the same the mother testified about how drunk mr pittman was when he arrived that night which corroborates the statements by the victim that they had been drinking the although no bottles were found at the actual location there was testimony that the bottles wouldn't be found because the transients frequently went through the collect of the bottles for recycling they did however produce bottles that resembled the ones that had the same lightning strike and now the state's exhibit one i believe that victim's story that they had been drinking there was other evidence presented to corroborate the victim so this is not a case where it was simply one person being uncorroborated in addition to the evidence presented  instructions do weigh heavily in a finding of no prejudice as far as the common on the ferry to testify this court ruling conversion of sunset it will not reverse a conviction where the comment is a single isolated incident does not stress an inference of guilt and is followed by fear of instruction the fact is there was a curative instruction in court told the jury without that the defendant did not have to testify and that a statement made directly in response to the defense's closing argument it was a statement based on the evidence petitioners counsel has indicated that the prosecutor talked about all this an area where grooming chand is considered a technical term pedophile groom somebody but this was not the argument that the prosecutor was making there's no other reference to eight have had a file or expert testimony or the prosecutor's own personal knowledge this was this is the evidence the defense counsel just got up and told you that this game that he played is not believable because no one excuse me fart at will and the prosecutor response just no one said they were actually doing that it was just a game they were playing and that is why this is this is this is believable what the victim has just told you it is believable this is if he was a younger victim he would say i have some candy for you or i have a puppy that's not going to work on somebody who's eleven so what do you do you create a game or you give them alcohol or you give them marijuana and this is how you get in and so they'll follow you down to this just to this railroad shed and put you in a position where you can be effective nice that is all reasonable arguments based on the evidence that was presented there was no evidence presented that he did associate only with children and not with adults this was an issue is when you see something is typical that's