supreme court looked at the state court opinion and the state court opinion contingent her definition of strickland and its pacifically did not require that the defendant show key would have been acquit witness was a jailhouse snitch who was exchanging testimony in x for a more lenient sentence and it's well established precedent for the supreme court in this court and the weakness a prosecution case natters and here the case was weak it relied upon the testimony of a jailhouse snitch and circumstantial evidence that means circumstantial evidence of mr all there is involvement undermining the credible testimony of a confession was key and all the statements to this regard is that maybe he wouldn't have been the best as written is to testify but whether he would have been the best witness to instead the court this is the state court and simply one paragraph dispose of all of the evidence and all of the affidavits and assume that counsel knew what these witnesses were going to say and that he made strategic decisions not to use her at the davids not to use their their testimony as to what trial strategy to pursue case law is clear however that it is error to simply assume in response to the kings rushing the car that evidence at hand warranted further investigation into self defense and it wasn't highly deficient for counsel not assumption counsel of what these witnesses would say undermine they show reasonable doubt reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would be different they show that over and not invited just got of to come with brief and it also stated to state to state court cases that cited the correctly reciting the standard and if they court's decision under this court's president is not contrary to strickland merely because it later uses the short testimony that the conversation with jolene motel will never happen in you to she never confessed to him you would not have been accountable and thus would have been acquitted so there is no contrary to argument here but whethe directed delgado to fire at the at length kings and that even if they didn't the evidence showed that petitioner intel gathering again to a common criminal design and so some of britishness proposed witnesses were offered to undermine the accountability evidence w others were offered to argue that counsel should have presented a self defense claim in this respect i'll respond to your height highlighted robert espinosa testimony he in fact was offered deface it so that the casings could not be later matched to the gun and we don't simply have circumstantial evidence or we do have forensic evidence that corroborates this testimony so consistent with the petitioners admissions to row the  o despite their attempts to deface that gun and not only that we have to consider we also have the evidence supporting the state's nd theory that the common criminal design theory and spinoza's testimony does not undermine that testimony all the latin kings witnesses gave consistent accounts supporting the titian is accountability for the murder under this common criminal design theory collectively they testified that they were asked to leave the party and shortly th shots that testimony itself was corroborated by the two disinterested witnesses pastern women driving home from work appear to shooters girlfriends testimony guadalupe right assess the money also supports the nd theory of countability the district court correctly recognized certainly be it as an be viewed as an indication that they intended to put her health and welfare in jeopardy said on the rear floorboard although she did testify that she didn't hear petition or did the shot she did say that she contrary his own sentencing hearing he testified the petitioner did order him to shoot which certainly underscores the reasonableness of the state courts to conclusion that because this case was that that point still in the pretrial stages that it delgado's case was still in the pretrial stages he couldn't be relied upon to testify that petitioner didn't want him to and had delgado testified corsi would have been questioned about his membership in the gang tissues membership in the gang against rivalry with the delgado's testimony doesn't undermine that nd theory as to the viability of a self defense claim evidence that wright has allegedly ran at the car in a threatening manner couldn't satisfy a self defense claim under under illinois law which requires proof of use of on lawful for simply running out a car is not unlawful force it's not even a right of one waffle force and even if as though got a later claim in a nd affidavit that someone ran at the car holding a black object that appeared to be a gun council could reasonably decline to raise a self defense claim and there's no reasonable probability that such a claim would have succeeded because the as a matter of state law section seven point four or seven dashboard sighting are brief seven hundred and twenty i'll see s five slash seven dash for a claim of self defense is unavailable if the defendant initially provoked the use force against himself unless he can show that he exhausted every of reasonable means to escape the imminent danger now while it's true as as petitioner claims that illinois law also provides that one has a duty not to become the aggressor that r simply doesn't apply in the facts of this case because petitioner was the initial aggressor he didn't exhaust all reasonable means to withdraw from the danger instead he purposefully they came back around to pick up the girlfriend told  not pursue a claim of self defense so considered as a whole counsel's representation here was cast usually adequate and he could as he did here reasonably elect to prefer to hold the state to its burden rather than risk pursuing a self defense claim that depended on an unpredictable witness like delgado who again might or might not testify couldn't tell at the time because he was still in the pretrial stages and i'm believable witnesses testimony would not warrant a jury instruction on on reasonable belief in self defense you only get there if in fact a self defense instruction is issued some no self defense instruction no one reasonable so believe in self defense so there was no reasonable probability i understand and there were exhibits at trial that were not included in the record so i in fact i had the same problem your honor and i i looked at a google map and unhelpfully the streets and in east moline the there is streets  that's where they take that where petitioner and joe got to take that st shot and they drive around the corner they sort of drive around the block and they come down th avenue and they come up here they come in so they drive around here and they pick her up and then they go around essentially around a large block as i understood it again it's not it's not super clear from the record this is my interpretation based on looking at a google map they pick her out t dock and they come back around and you know basically going back to where they had seen those trying to find him back on that same corner although three of them so they split up there were five latin kings two went one way and three of them men ran down an alley don't believe that a petition ordered delgado to shoot once you know he took that st turn and he saw delgado shoot right the st time and he deliberately drove him back that was enough for him to be found accountable under a common criminal design an evidentiary hearing in the district court where the district court can determine one whether petitioners witnesses will testify as they say they would in their affidavits where we can value weight the credibility of the proposed testimony and also evaluate the somehow doing something different the case is that the courts the sting court cited also did not indicate that a reasonable probability of a different result me that confident that there was a reasonable probability to undermine confidence in the outcome or sufficient evidence to undermine confidence in the outcome that's the problem here this is a proposing a dramatic correct those cases are age and then carter versus duncan in those cases the evidence that the org is is saying isn't sufficient to change the outcome even though they're calling it some other other  standard that evidence is cumulative and it's not exonerated that's just not true and those as an affidavit and i also want to point out that counsel and in fact the district we're talking about montage of this testimony being heaped that is the circumstance in which president and in which prejudice occurs prejudice occurs when the evidence to convict is and that is something that's actually conceded here about non tonal those confession it was it wasn't compelling but yet she was credible because she wasn't someone swapping her testimony for looked into the defenses that mr over her could have raised in this case it was self defense was compelling the question of who was the initial aggressor was one that would have been prosecution that's also a problem because the compelling theory here is ordered the shots that was the easy way to convict that's undermined and the other theory of self defense was