frequented by gang members the gang members who were involved in nearly any attack there is there was no description whatsoever down notch my client there was a description about a blue sweater and a b i mean it is just never been argued whether or not i mean i looked at those cases that the court of appeals cited that absolutely are irrelevant to the circumstances of this case your honor so what you're left with is just a one line from the california superior court judge saying that client with misidentify he was apprehended simply because he happened to be in an area that was frequented by members of his gang there was nothing connected with the car to the crime nothing there was one fact one description that was given by the radio which was they shook hands and a blue sweater my client in according to the police report and the play money hearing testimony of client to describe other than the identification testimony which is inherently unreliable you are inherently unreliable and more so in this case and any other case that i've looked at and the government corner who knows who attacked a car who did one in the span of two minutes the driver the car all the officers found of two seconds we're talking about something that just simply non existent you well they were  i think you've overstated your case just a little bit they they gave the they gave the officers a description they were able to come up with clothing descriptions they gave them a height and weight description gave them approximate age description they gave it to  an accurate description of a bicycle so there were other things that the officers had because they the officers didn't just choose three people randomly off the street and bring the bring the kids over well they did give a description of five five to five seven or five four to five playing on which which one you go by and then they gave a description of a blue sweater and beige pounds and gave a description of male hispanic in their early twenty's or teens that could be anybody that was at that corner he may very well have been but the police report says he wasn't how could that be any how could that be reliable evidence to rest a conviction on a twenty six year plus sentence for a twenty five year old man at age four in two thousand he's been in prison for fifteen this is one of these cases where this miscarriage of justice has happened and the reason for that is very simple you are there's nothing connecting my client to the qual nothing whatsoever and in fact there's an uncertified issue mr turner that initially testify a trial that a police officer and i'm assuming he's referring to officer cousteau who officer who still was the officer who was inside the patrol car during the shop identification that a police officer somehow said to him these are the guys or said something that would force  did you identify these suspects referring to the three at the show up because somebody told you to and he specifically testified no and that's at the excerpts of record at page one thousand and eleven so i do want to point that out even though the defense d testimony his entire testimony should be considered in that regard and in response to another question your honor i have asked regarding what which as far as a standard review the position that we have is that it should be under the age and it should be in this case under the mare's decision from the los angeles county superior court which did have a decision which specifically said that it appears that the shore procedure in this case was done properly by the police that's who would disagree with i'm sorry your honor let's say we i'm sorry your honor you have you know i was asking for some authority on that point not not your personal belief ok we get to an issue that the state court has not the side because supreme court said that if a state court makes a decision on the mare makes a decision but it does not like that decision is assumed to also address the federal constitutional issues unless it's rebut i believe so because there is also case law which speaks about how even if a state court does not specifically cite federal law specifically u s supreme court precedent it is still that is still not that's not required so in this case i believe that it can be inferred that it was the entire analysis not just the limited to the impermissible suggestiveness fact part of that analysis  i think your honor and living on as far as the actual malice as even if this court would you disagree with that then there were several factors in this case that do show that these show up identifications reliable under the totality of circumstances for instance the opportunity attackers wrapped car windows and trinidad testified that although it was a short period of time perhaps ten seconds around that time it was a very close it is a symbol of the other factor as the the degree of attention during the crime the s answered had paid a great deal of attention during the car attack salamanca testified specifically at trial that he was paying great attention and trinidad testified that he also was paying attention it because his necklace was actually grabbed her and attacked in part of it was taken so he c who took his necklace however it tested at trial he extensively explained and continued to explain that his memory was very fresh at the time of the shop identification that it was only in it that the evidence shows it was only half an hour after the crime itself so he did explain a couple things he said well it was much my memory was much better much fresher more details at the time of the shop identification the crime occurred on november fifth two thousand the trial happened in march around march  two thousand and one so several months had passed from the time of the crime to the actual trial when he was testifying and also specific to trinidad there was also some inconsistency speak which explained that this was a case that involved gang members and he did like for instance at the shop identification he specifically trinidad excuse me specifically identified petitioner and louis c as the two individuals but at the preliminary hearing he did not identify petitioner and this is something to defense did emphasize to the jury during the trial and then during the trial when treated at first i testified he initially did not identify petitioner was reluctant to identify petitioner but then as his testimony continued he ultimately did identify petitioner and the prosecutor asked him well why didn't she identified him in the earlier part of the court day and he explained you know i'm afraid they know where i live and that is something that he used to explain his hesitancy to identify petitioner both at the trial and at the preliminary hearing and that is something that jury salamanca do you recognize their of their faces before anyone said anything to you know very clear although he later testify that he recognized the suspects based on what they did and their face in the you do the look through and you go to the california court of appeal clearly the responder has said that the california court of appeal denied this claim on procedural grounds which by definition means that hour earlier obviously they're going to go ahead and pick out these guys is i would have kicked them out if i were in the same situation order and that's what happened in this case just precisely what happened it's curious mr carro is not a necessarily