the remarkable coincidence is that four independent witnesses who did not know each other all decided to falsely implicate somebody in this victim's murder and all four of them happened to choose the petitioner in this case granting the relief in this case the  magistrate judge who recommended relief not only ignored important prosecution evidence especially petitioner separate confessions to two individuals on separate occasions but made numerous critical errors in her findings of fact which i fully laid out in the briefs and compound at that ask to have the forming witnesses about the reward could have completely turned the case around petitioners favor one of those it is that at the time of the murder before any reward had been offered mendoza provided such a detailed description of petitioner to the carcer in it together in juvenile hall petitioner told lopez that he'd been involved in a murder at a store and he acted the murderer out as if somebody had shot the victim right in the center of the forehead and i believe that's a critical specific fact in this case strate in the district court in turn were using the wrong standard to review your answer to that is what my answer is i think if we look at the order of the whole on the whole that that's not the right conclusion to reach in the courts that actually  its application of controlling federal authority  when there is no reason state court decision as here the federal hate is court independently reviews the record but the law which no one has disputed is the right rule by whether there was a constitutional violation strand of a statement it's kind of like what the supreme court said in the shocking case the federal hate these courts shouldn't do that you should look at the entire opinion and here in the immediately two precinct paragraphs that the court is stating the correct wall and it's just general argued that the court doesn't discuss unreasonable application out and therefore wants us to conclude that it was not pines test but it's very difficult in a situation like this when there is no recent state court opinion for the federal about giving the respondent and the state court notice of the substance of the claim and that occurred here and i think the best evidence of that is in the state's reply case the supreme court at the size that after there's been a full trial in the district court and all these federal resources have been invested courts have the discretion to find that there was a waiver and this exhaustion claim was not raised in this report in fact that and mendoza knew about the reward and whether she had any strategic reasons for failing to cross examine that i think that shows that that's what they understood the claim to be and that's all exhaustion is about is giving them notice and they knew what the claim is and never raised it with the district court and now they're taking the contrary position here if i could just quickly discuss prejudice there's a lot of talk about you know jose lopez and how important their testimony wa the lead investigating officer testified at the evidence you're hearing below that he requested that the reward be renewed because at that time he needed more witnesses the case was not strong enough to file information three also the prejudice is clear in this case from the district attorney's closing argument do not have a bias in this case that there was no reason for them to point the finger or not so unless he was the actual perpetrator and she vast for them saying they were so honest and so honest and so pure it goes directly to the prejudice i've concluded that there's prejudiced and therefore because i mean that conclusion the state court's decision to the contrary was abducted leon reasonable and in doing so completely fails to explain why her conclusion one way necessarily means that a conclusion to the contrary is not only wrong but objective leon reasonable and i believe that by standing out in the beginning that in her mind under and under the previous case as objective legal reasonable equals clear error when there's a silent  instead the court must independently review the record which agrees the correct now the question of what the court needs to do but she says to independently review the record to determine whether the state court clearly erred in its application of federal law and i believe that that was simply or any place citing the up must answered in the case that she went out of her way to distinguish the applicable standard so i don't i'm johnny i sad i'm not going to apply that standard in this case because we have a summary denial and i think that that goes to show that that's in fact against prejudiced mendoza before we weren't was issued cooperated with the pleas gave them useful information they prepared a composite sketch at trial it was introduced it matched petitioners resemblance the prosecutor argued that during closing argument look at this gas and look at the kitchen or it actually matches don't really undermines any notion that she came forward and just pick somebody nollie willy in order to collect money and his and he's not the only w have another witness who also says yes that's the guy who i saw at the store and and those are the only two witnesses who are potentially affected by the lack of the one question about the reward but then you've got two more witnesses who came forward and said the petitioner is the one who was at the store with his his friend and committed this robbery and this woman died as a result of being shot in the center of the forehead and if we only have one witness maybe even just as to have witnesses and this question has been asked this might be a different case  that's not the case here you've got four people all living their own separate lives to come forward and identify the same guy in the two eyewitnesses also describe the exact same car and the chances of all that happening had everybody decided to falsify and identification to either collect money or shift away suspicion that's just not a reasonably probable theory and it's not reasonably probable that the jury would have believed that and the defense did a great job of thoroughly cross