extension of time with your honor's the state has a burden to show that it perform due diligence by beginning efforts with then an appropriate amount of time and according to this court  of you're right the state had a duty of i said to perform due diligence the information they were getting seemed to indicate that not hennepin county authorities didn't even really know where he was they said that they believe she was there but he wasn't coming out they believe he was there where the trial where the prosecutors introduced the fact that defendants codefendant pled guilty had at opening an opening statement and direct examination and closing statement that was a single continuous air  two accomplices one who refused to testify and one who testified give a couple answers and quit talking and then the state argued in closing well the fact they were here in the pled guilty in the past there with them you know they had therefore this guy's guilty mr sullivan in this case the an official judicial finding of guilt where person is represented by counsel and it's in front of a judge compared to destroy his confession where it was he given he was fourteen he was in a room by himself before police officers his parents weren't there when he made its initial confession and it was in the middle of the to make a credibility determination between that part confession which i mentioned here you know which made when he was fourteen and the fact that mr book and you know said i was the only one who did it at trial that's a credibility determination the court the jury would have had to make  for mckinney if the state was foolishly enough to call him but he testified that mckinney didn't do it i don't know what more you can ask and he did it himself how often you see that we're a defendant says i committed  while that that well that was the initial impression can it put on the jury when during opening statement it hurts them because first of all defense the prosecution introduced this measure is the fact the charges are actually elevated and basically showing  sorry let's agree to tell the jury what happened so well they've ridgewood in you know in camera or defense counsel admitted that they didn't know the whole story and that they and when were even the states that you know and it's brief concedes that truck cost of the not have the complete information regarding these  trial term and at that time not only did the state's attorney make all the representation is about all the information they had from hennepin county the repeated assurances they received that the witness was in fact residing and had a pen county she provided to the court a investigator request slip from september two thousand and eight almost nine months before the trial to corroborate the state's app for its included in the record there is a material witness certificate from november of two thousand and eight eight months before the trial occurred when it became obvious she also supplied to the judge the name of the prosecutor who she was dealing with and had a pain county when the hennepin county officials could not locate the witness she actually flew out to hennepin county on may third to try to locate this witness surely if these are more than diligent efforts i don't know what is in addition in this case the question is did the trial court abuse its discretion in here the trial court said it all he said i find the state has exercised a yeoman's efforts in trying to find this witness now on appeal we go from due diligence to an argument that somehow the state should have known that the witness was actually in or a scene county because there is zero reference and the record that he was in re seeing county in two thousand and six this reference is meaningless to the determination of diligence under the speedy trial issue not only ac but the wad tells us that the determination on appeal is the facts known to the trial court at the time he made the determination and clearly at the time he made that excuse me she made the determination this factor was not brought conceal this information from the trial court that is a totally on fear attack upon the integrity of these states attorneys who did everything that they could to try to find this witness and made  their good for the efforts known to the trial judge and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion and i want to personally i don't i'm sure it's not personal but it says what it is with regards to the codefendant pleading guilty think the resolution of the issue really revolves around what they're not objecting to they're not objecting to the statement they're not objecting the fact that he sort of just sounds they're not objecting to the fact that he got twenty five years  yes that's correct but they are not objecting to the fact that the prosecution brought up the fact that he was sentenced to twenty five years or that he's finished serving his sentence but in addition obviously that evidence is roller bent on him and to the dishes that you point the point that your honor pointed out that it could be possibly helpful to the defendant it was relevant because it gave the codefendant a motivation to come and take the blame totally because he'd already finished serving a sentence and he pled guilty and in addition it was relevant because when the defendant was arrested he said to the police the co defendants not going to testify against me so it corroborated his statement to the police and in addition i agree that under under the recent case of kenyatta white this court doesn't even need to get to error and claim there is particular instructive in this case because prior to trial the state put the defense on notice that they were going to admit this advents in fact the defen attorney a g g nine and ten sat i'll take a look at and see if there's anything i want redacted so if there's ever a situation where the defense is on knows that this information is can come out and has the opportunity to have jack clearly they didn't object because they didn't want to object whatever it could help them yes is that a single comment during opening statement could provide the basis for ineffective assistance of counsel under strickland apparently what the attorney did is he said that the charges had been dropped was holding a rap sheet that didn't indicate to him that the charges were that reinstated and upgraded what the parties did then as they took a look at the situation and the court tried to carve out the best way of informing the jury about the accuracy of the information  court just a mere fact makes a statement it's that you weren't trying to pull the turn because i wasn't trying to pull anything and the court says yes you didn't have all the information there was nothing personally discrediting to the attorney there's nothing personal about it the parties were just surely trying to give the jury the accurate information and it appears noting that even in closing argument defense counsel still uses information to his benefit by arguing that two years wasn't a bad gig for all these gone's and that the witness only talking after he had been arrested and that this information wasn't brought before the grand jury so even despite the fact of his statement in opening statement he still use this information to i would not really can see that because i don't first of all the jurors was instructed that that argument is not evidence and secondly it was a minor matter the attorney made a statement of fact which was later it wasn't really  pronounced before the jury it wasn't there was no what he said this and this was a mistake it was purely a half i guess of the rest of the story and so therefore that it wasn't a statement or  inaccuracy and that it was not the whole entire actuality of what happened i will say it discredited him and certainly not personally discredit him he still use this information in closing argument which i think shows his two thousand and six while they did you know indicate that they received some sort of information which they didn't really articulate you know where it came from or exactly what that information was that jackson was in hennepin county again they didn't give an address that the county has a population of over a million people  they just didn't make that they didn't establish clearly that they had they they could be confident of where jackson was at that time as for issue number four counsel argued that they go to play was relevant to the final issue of i'm going to check them since the council this wasn't a single minor incident that you know that had no real effect on the trial this was a promise made by constant opening statement of you know blockbuster type impeachment