him or herself has potential liability for the crime ok this court's duty to determine whether or not the state courts the station was unreasonable whether its factual determination whether it's application of task for confrontation of last analysis and that's made clear in recently in crawford when it's that when in conclusion and it leaves roberts in place and says this is the terminations for another day it may well be the confirmation doesn't even apply at all to these sorts of statements whether there's an accomplice involved or not so what we are left with from the united states supreme court and that is the precedent that is important under the standard and the framework that this case must be analyzed under and that is what the state court apply are were there adequate indicia of reliability in the statement and the state court found that he's making this close in time that mom was making the statement close in time to a very good friend who doesn't even know that mr bailey has been murdered tells that he is bothered doesn't doesn't come to the friend directly mr mom or as role can be determined from the fact well certainly one of the perpetrators will do the hammer it's important to keep in mind that mr danley thoughts killed not only five blows to the head from a hammer but because he had a scarf stuffed and stuck into his mouth his airway it was constricted and he could not breathe he was set on fire at that initial crime he was also suffered blows to the head that were inconsistent with a hammer his body was burned and he was bound all of these things suggest that we chilled repeatedly ghost petitioner at the hammer well certainly one's role  is not standing around feeling morally culpable as a physician or suggest today and there's no evidence to suggest that whatsoever in any place in the real state for record what you have  is a statement that is made to a friend made in confidence exactly like the statement in the well written opinion and boom this case is very similar to that certainly we've had proffered that has come down since then crawford doesn't directly implicate this case it's non testimony a statement but you used the same framework of ohio vs roberts used the same framework of lilly and it can't be said that the state courts determination was unreasonable under the facts and that's the test right outside the door of the mom or what mom was told to stand behind mr daly someone else was holding the door to the kitchen where the murder occurred open shoot left the scene at that point now driven by a scot kimball that appears weighted down in the trunk that car departs and returns approximately forty to forty five minutes later no longer weighted down the trunk blood tests subsequently confirm the presence of human blood in the trunk forty minutes is the length of time that it would take an individual to drive from the residence to the location mr daly body was found dumped and burned and to return to the scene in the sum and substance of the evidence against petitioners certainly the statement of modeler is the most damning evidence and the central evidence in this case isn't the case the crocker conducted a likely hearing on this issue it the term and the determined the hearsay exception the political in the instant case and then went on told an additional hearing that's not enough we need to have the adequate and issue of reliability he went on to make its findings and of course the state court affirmed those findings on the basis of lilly which was published between the time for awhile and the time of the direct appeal in this