reasoning so in this case the court construed the record and that trial testimony supported the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument that it went in hers did mario young was correct that up to that point the state appellate court's interpretation with reasonable but it also should have gone and found that this reference to mario young was also supported by the trial because the parties had shared this premise that this was the nature of the meeting investigator and i would also stress the sort of circumstances here making clear the intimidation certainly i think that's what the gist record was focused on that maybe the conduct in the just a file in the complete uncooperativeness while testifying there could be an inference that he felt intimidated or didn't want to testify my young investigator it was it was implicit in the question so the prosecutor referred to a conversation that any conversation had taken place the prosecutor specified this was a conversation with ultimately the most important point is i just did miss this conversation had occurred a conversation he initially falsely denied when questioned by the prosecutor and then alternately admitted it was the case when he was corrected by defense counsel interpretations of the record offered by counsel that were not supported by evidence in the record source of instructions cured any potential prejudice in darden certainly if you're any potential prejudice here we did not have the sort of found that the prosecutor's improper assertions of facts not in evidence in his rebuttal argument deprive mr evans of his constitutional right to a fair hearing in the state courts rejection of that claim was based on an unreasonable interpretation of the facts reaching that conclusion the district court accorded appropriate deference to the state courts in its act aland decision properly recognized that there were no facts in evidence showing that an investigator employed i just a young referring to about the connection between young and the investigator is that that citation i gave earlier transcript volume two pages i one hundred and seventy four to one hundred and seventy six and just please bear with me while i repeat some of the questions and answers because i think i'm interested in your thoughts on them the question posed was the state's attorney just asked you if you spoke to an investigator for mario young when you next question right when you were out in answer right it strikes me that that's the area that the state is arguing connects the two that although mr jeffers was certainly  s testimony we've throughout the hearing that the area would have been sufficient for purposes of the questioning whether or not young should retain the investigator what are your thoughts on that my my thoughts are the following your honor st i read that that is the only answer in the record that would be a basis to make the argument the prosecutor sought make i don't agree that it is ambiguous in any way i answer to the prosecutor's underlying question i guess how cross examination is how and every day which counsel say to the witness you recall being asked the splash then the witness says yes i recall the question in the way or moves immediately afterwards and did you tell them did you stick with the store to do stick with the story with that investigator referring back to the premise or arguably one of  namely the investigator promoter you know young i understand your response to judge brennan's question that st question was merely a reiteration of the question of drawing attention to the question but when he went on to refer to that investigator there wasn't anything qualifying about it so why couldn't one reasonable interpretation be what the state court interpreted this for two reasons your honor st the defense lawyer in asking those requests and explicitly did not reference who the testimony before so there was no i mean there was there's no question that he spoke to somebody we have no basis for what it or that person is you know and there's nothing about that of the term not investigator that person that provides t linkage which this higher you know argument to ins on to to mario young mr snyder you've answered our questions directly and i want to thank you for that i want to shift to another area of the of the transcript on this topic obviously there's two issues there is the use of the phrase gang banging and then there is the one we've been discussing here the connection between young and the investigator and there's a certain amount of deference obviously we've got to give to the and ninety four and this is the closing argument and during the closing argument the prosecutor is making obviously making the presentation and there are objections from the defense counsel in the trial court's ruling on those objections i found it looks like at least three instances where when the prosecutor argued that the young investigator connection had resulted in a change in mr jeffers testimony that the trial court was overruling those objections on page essay fifty two essay fifty four and essay fifty six now there are instances where the trial judge sustain the objection those however were to questions where the use of the word gang banger was included to wondering here is whether the trial judge based upon the record felt a sufficient comfort with the argument that was being offered by the prosecutor that the young investigator was the reason for the change testimony but that proper trial judge did not feel comfortable with the use of the phrase gangbang what are your thoughts on that i don't think we know your honor because the trial court you know gave no explanation for the of jackson's that that arguments that are and that's not now before the courts i think the central issue here is the prosecutor's assertions jumper is was you know intimidated based on the linkage to mr young which was as a passenger in the vehicle sort of facilitated the shooting and moving forward while we have here is a consistent identification outside of court then relative