on this can often we will have another justice listen to the oral arguments will give him the briefs and all the information and hand him what he and who are her to fight his case with facts so are there any questions concerning white the first issue that you raise is raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to peach with the police report yes and i have this question on you we were in the report even if you were indications this shooting occurred very quickly there would have been more room for argument that mr holmes was being truthful and this erwin even mistaken are on truthful when she it could have made an impression on the jury that mr holmes was telling the truth again after all these events all happened very quickly we were partying people who were drinking doing whatever this is an argument that would have been available to  the mere without details just the mere fact that he had been subject to three prior buildings in their brood have made these all reasonable acts will be reasonable on this occasion while i believe that it goes to his state of mind as to whether or not whether or not he was unreasonable i mean you have to look again mr holmes and see that he's a person who has been details of three previous attacks mr holmes still should have been permitted by his counsel to testify that he had been attacked three previous times so you're saying that that  testimony there were some things going on in the neighborhood wasn't sufficient that's very very vague it's not sufficient i mean he is saying oh i had a gun because i live in a bad neighborhood that doesn't really or i was in a thank you thank you will have an opportunity to thank you retired couple of years ago used to say that every case is a killer fact in this case the killer fact is that the purported to be inconsistency in jimmy sherwin's testimony is that you told one officer that the victim was up by the door of the porch and she told another officer that he was on the ground talking to the defendant what she's a purported to have said to anyone is that the victim came down at the defendant but the defendant self defense theory is based essentially now on the geographic position but on the fact that it was his perception that the victim was coming at him and then he was going to his waistband for a weapon of some sort have told the police officer that if the the bottom of this years doesn't provide what the defendant needs for his self defense theory which is the victim coming at him the fact that he's pulled the fact that she trusted she told an officer that he was on the ground important evidence is the relationship between the victim the defendant it was brought out in a trial in the earlier cation the victim instructed a friend and i think it was brought up and it struck him in the  e it is i think the important element here is that there was a previous altercation in the victim had the better of it and so to the extent that the defendant's theory is self defen he was going to the house where good girlfriend apparently was visiting residing whenever and it's a place where you really are all occasion occurred so to the extent it was a state of mind showing that he has reason to fear this defendant i'm sorry this victim there was in fact explored a trial because the prior altercation with brought forth the really rejects are not relevant to whether he has reason to fear in this particular victim the jury heard everything you needed to hear about the earlier relationship in the earlier altercation and so the fact that he had earlier incidents didn't have any anything to do with why he carried a gun going to this house to see his girlfriend hard to distinguish the cases that your opponents you know it's going to be you really says they simply don't ring true it's one of these things where it is entirely untrue intuitive to i think that something that has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular incident or a particular victim has anything to do with the defendant's statement of the state of mind i  defense i would argue that this could have been the difference between a finding of guilty of attempted murder which is a specific intent crime versus a reasonable belief in self defense and i'm not entirely sure that that's the way they argued this but i think that to the extent that there's anything arguable that would be what the argument would be however again in my belief would be that to the extent that he had any reason and all three of them for whatever give him whatever circumstance or for whatever reason he was apparently subject to attack and i guess my concern is it relates to an incident where he chooses to go he chooses to go armed and he chooses to go armed because we know that he had a history with this specific  remain skeptical of the argument that this would be in any way mitigating as to a self defense instruction he has to the specific victim when these were things that were related to the victim again were all several years in the past none of them were close in time and you know get his statement that there were things going on in the neighborhood gets rid of or ephemeral and you don't hear you know get a juror i would not know what he was talking think there's definitely a point however and i guess and i want to sound like a broken record but i think everything skeptical of the relevance of things that occurred to him even though he was clearly a victim of these things when they were several years prior and i understand what one states i have skeptical of the relevance when you're looking at the need we could be given the nature of self defense when you're looking at the nature of the jury tribulation that he in fact intended to kill this person and i'm terribly sure how things that happened seven years before in fact are relevant so i guess my i guess my problem is that and i really skeptical of the holdings in wouldn't williams that i think that i think that there elevating state of mind to something that does be out of the facts of a particular case and part of the problem with th becomes the rest or i don't know and again this may be more public policy then legal argument i don't know that society is served by saying that if you've been a victim elsewhere we're going to mitigate your future violence i don't know that i think that's helpful way to view things and i don't know if the end where the jury was fully apprised of the nature of the relationship between the defendant in the victim the any other thing when he had i know that i don't need to go through the first stage post conviction review for this court except to say that it only requires a very limited amount of detail to any kind excuse me  to question them no one in the brief citizen asking this court to rethink those holdings those are first district cases anyway but to rethink those holdings woods and williams that that's a lot of th i think it's sort of the same question so i don't really know how to answer that i don't think those two things are different whether he didn't run away rather than confronting those  to impress the jury of mr holmes the state of mind rather than giving into these unrelated attacks however the jury was instructed as to as to words if if mr holmes was there to retaliate against way and it was not the jury was not instructed basically that they could consider that as to mr holmes the state of mind generally whether he thought mr