upon wife happened in state court where there was also no evidentiary hearing despite some very detailed affidavits or declarations from the expert in evidence you're hearing i believe is appropriate in this case because without that we we haven't had a full fleshing out of what the expert would have said and that very well here are first of all the prosecution argued in closing argument that the victim was a lying down when this occurred and then the prosecution admitted that they had virtually no evidence they had zero evidence really of motive and they and the quick question for the jury was the credibility of the defendant who testified lying down when he was shot and so and from that they had their strongest argument that the defendant should not be believed so it is absolutely critical evidence in support of the of the defendant's theory of the case of the of a lack of premeditation and a lack of intent as well as acting in self defense  and i think the government at least below seem to focus an awful lot on self defense and exclude and ignoring the fact that there are additional issues of premeditation and intent regardless of whether or not the jury agreed that there was actual self defense there is still a question of premeditation and a question of intention and there was absolutely no evidence in this case the trial th defendant bore any ill will whatsoever to this this victim it was it's a very perplexing case from from that standpoint and there are there are certainly a lot of discussion by the state of the  they they reviewed all the evidence and looked at least to the extent that they looked at it independently because the reporting recommendation as well as the order by the district court judge accepting that report and recommendation simply adopt appeals was they made their own credibility determination of case when he's credibility of his expert affidavit and this is this happens to be by the way the gentleman who ran the washington state crime lab in seattle for for many years and the court of appeals is not in the position to make that credibility determination cabana versus public makes clear  act we haven't those are still that still subject to question it is the it is not reasonable and is contrary to law to adopt that credibility determination by a court of appeals that didn't hear experts from the state and then maybe credibility determinations we would be in a different situation than we are now but we're not there because no one has fully considered wasn't a question of him being repeatedly interrogated by police and then he finally breaks down he turned himself in and he made this statement  and and without that the prosecutor could take full advantage and claim that this was a preposterous cooked up statement of issue in the light of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim any expert testimony that would come with that what we're asking for here is for this court to remain and this case for  in addition the procedural bar was found by the magistrate judge but not for the district court judge so i will correct that into the point of moving to the merits of the district court correctly deny heaviest relief because the state court decision in this case was not contrary to or or and reasonable application of supreme court president in order to obtain relief mr pollack on this must show that the state court decision was objective l reasonable and the supreme court has recently declared that means more than clearly erroneous it's a higher standard than that so even if this court of the district court were to find a constitutional or an error in fact occur that would still not entitle him to relieve an effective claim in the prosecutor misconduct claim because the petitioner cannot show prejudiced this is in reviewing the evidence presented by the petitioner the court found that even if the expert mr sweeney testified as he set forth in his declaration it would neither affected the outcome of the jury's verdict because mr sweeney's testimony was that the victim while naked while the covers were up to his waist was rising reasonable belief of imminent danger of serious bodily injury he went to the victims room armed with a handgun and he walked up to the victim the victim was naked and he was either lying sit just starting to sit up and he shot him at close range in the chest as not far records show the door where he said he entered from where the body was the feet according to his own testimony and the state's experts based on the stapling that gunpowder residue hitting the body and leaving marks on the body testified that it was within two to three feet  testimony that he was lying at start sitting up after lying down does not support a claim of self defense and the stake or correctly they didn't find him not credible they found us testimony not convinc was not based on frames of gavin's there's no science involved it's just speculation he said it would make sense for a person a walking and walk around the bed before shooting as they would have to do if the person is lying down well what happens in murders often doesn't make sense there's no friends it's involved in whether a person would do that or not that's pure speculation he also speculated that if he was lying down and somebody shot him at close range they'd shoot him in the head rather than in the by again that's pure speculation fictional friends it can fall to and he also speculated that most people would think that a head shot in the paper but as the state court reasonably determined most people regardless of what's in movies know that if you shoot someone in the heart it's going to be  then he didn't call police he went and bought cigarettes and then although he claimed he was a thief afraid the victim's family would try to get him or their friends would try to get him he didn't call the police he went back and tried to cover up the crime he stabbed him at least three times in the heart in the medical examiner who actually went to the scene and as is customary in king county testified that at first it was difficult to understand what kind of  probability that the jury's verdict would have been different and his national prejudice the state court recently deny the claim finally on the claims of prosecutor misconduct the first allegation is taking to the worst of mankind of crimes of war mr pollack honest takes that argument completely out of context there was nothing in inappropriate that he was not the prosecutor was not saying this was a one of the worst acts and then kind he was trying to inspiration even if that was improper argument there was a curative instruction given under supreme court case law when the judge provides a curative instruction to improper argument and the evidence is otherwise strong and the evidence of premeditation and lack of self defense there is no prejudice the state courts recently concluded there is no crankiness because that conclusion is subjectively reasonable and not contrary to supreme court case law district ineffective assistance of counsel that was raised in the personal restraint petition the state instead spend a lot of time talking to you about that some of the ghastly are facts of this case suggesting that that was the only issue here and it's not there is an issue of premeditation and there is an issue of intent and regardless of whether or not there was reasonable force regardless of whether or not he actually what he thought was a hatchet in the victim's hand there is still a question given this circumstances  motion for broader certification of the issues on appeal because i submit to the court that these issues are all interrelated that they all have to do with this central question of premeditation intent and self defense the question of for example the search and seizure issue raised in the motion for reconsideration has to do with the l the letter is what the government relied on in their their closing argument that is the subject of the prosecutorial misconduct argument and then the testimony of chats late or the failure failure to immunize him or and the failure to alternatively allow the defense investigator to testify about the statements that he made also go to the reasonable then he went to this room fearing this person mr chad slayton admitted to the court that he had a gun that he for granted the gun that mr  said he had it was just a credibility question but in the end they argued in closing the victim was simply lying down well the expert testimony of mr sweeney would have disputed that but it wasn't fair the prosecutor argued that mr cohen conus consulted with a lawyer and then made up a self defense claim but without that letter they don't have that argument and also in part that argument relies upon the lack of chad slayton being in the nice when required to testify for the defense investigator being able to without because he didn't have any of that corroboration they were allowed to argue that his testimony had to stand on its own because it was on its own because of the lack o