him in regards to officer of villa because the defendant was convicted of two attempted murder charges one was in regard to officer hill and the other was in guard in regards to officer of villa and the record shows when we're talking about premeditated murder because we're talking about in the in the brief you know there's a state case that shows you know what you know what's required for finding a premeditated murder charge yes it was  striking contrast between this case in the united states versus young in the mid one nine hundred eighty s where the supreme court also expressed the desire to be vigilant against prosecutorial conduct that  you open the door and fire immediately what do you expect that person to big what strikes one of the opposite is near center of mass that sufficiently established that you intend that you had thought about your actions prepared to conduct them and  did not condone of course i would i could not condone a prosecutor who was suggesting that there was additional evidence to support a conviction that could have been proved presented and was not what happened i think you're  your asking for my opinion or my opinion is no that's not what happened this prosecutor did this prosecutor simply said that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the injury to the officer prosecutors and defense counsel regularly make what are i would say irrelevant comments to the jury expressing thanks for their participation in the criminal justice system thanks for their engaging in people are reluctant to engage him and if for their star attention during the course of a long trial that's right and i think and i did that and i believe that it when viewed in the context of the entire closing argument the you know i don't i don't think he said i don't think it's necessary he's but but i agree with the court that that is a possible inference that can be group that is a possible inference but i don't think that was the intended nor was  so there was no there's certainly no indication of an intentional of intentional misconduct by the prosecutor and the united states supreme court or so that the opening statement is that it's a statement of what evidence is expected to be raise this issue i take it as they did they were unsuccessful so what causes you to say that raising the appellate counsel was ineffective because the issues then raised probably would have been successful and no i believe that w and as far as the the vouching issue it really is interesting to note that there were several references to the fact that there were a lot of other witnesses out there it wasn't just one passing reference i think it was trying to to get this idea through the back door that it could have been a lot of people to to put the prosecution's case but since there was just so many witnesses already they didn't use it so i believe that that it show i'm reconstructing this off of the brief that i read a few days ago but i think that maybe what i thought i was remembering what was this issue raised by another defendant and if so what happened to to the issue when it was racis that issue had been successful yes well with it's fair to infer that it wasn't which comes back to the question is there some other reason to think that the issue would have been fruitful to pursue on appeal since the defendant that may have pursued it well i don't i don't think the c