move to the to the first case we're argument this morning and that is the case of brady versus secretary of the department and the call upon of michael ranting at some point you argue that really even if you could say that that was inferential that once the testifying detective to i saw the rifle he had it like down his pants white that's the part big quote ok now they left something out that significant and what they quote no that is the language from the william state william statement describes x s where the black leather trenchcoat and so you could argue that that might be a potential effort but the prosecutor makes it explicit in his argument when he says that boy oh i'm sorry that the decision on direct appeal should we make it that i think that that that reasoning is unreasonable i think the persevere supreme court decision was premised on the fact that it was a contractual amplification and so that the focus was on premeditation and that's really all that was argued was the premeditation aspect not did he do it and we also have the forensics that puts that shotgun which was talked about right up  against the man's back so i mean the lawyer didn't even argue that michael rainey wasn't the one with it do you any good if we thought that premeditation had not been overwhelmingly shown i don't think it would do you any good w be a plan to run for the state of the capitol fence as it was to start with here here the premeditation point there circumstantial evidence including the loading of the weapon you say that all of morgan it just going to accident or a crime of uncontrolled passion if you walk he said if i have to shoot somebody i will load the gun he walked up the put it in the man's back he pulled the trigger pick with william statement out of it and the fact that the jury found that's portion of the same and there is a plan to rob the all made up to street sniff again that's one of their jury questions can we hear that portion of the statement about what x said as the people on the street but we don't know what the jury was thinking and that that it does not take a genius to figure out a process on the nation you're talking about morgan and williams and x and the only three people that everybody in the court knows you are involved in this will play as the criminals are directly and plainly speaking about rain because if you read marsh carefully marsh isn't about the number of potential actors put no three  the other two so i mean realistically and then we get to the house an x told me to knock on the door but i said no then i've also stated knock on the door that's when expo that the gun of the old man said who is that accelerate out open the door and you have morgan who says that's what happened with doesn't it doesn't say that that's necessary so that actions and and when you and nothing in marsh suggests that this stuff this increase depends on the number of potential actors and then you can footnote five where the explicitly court that there's a confrontation cost problem and i and and the point is being put to you and put your repeatedly recently how how could it not have been clear who else could possibly have been x given that there were three people evidence that this happened you know she was there when they hear when they find out that she's sitting at the defense table too and they they determine that they can easily determine that she was there she was in the car she heard this conversation she knew it was going to happen as did that levy before so it's hard for me to understand how a prosecutor would not have recognized at that time simply in the way of proof that this was not a correct way to put a codefendant statement in front of a jury if it clear that brady was the person that williams was talking about that that had to have added some weight to the scale or the prosecutor would have gone to the respect right right right but what about the additional corroboration that it sufficiently weight to make a problem i don't think so i think in almost every prudent case the confession that's being challenged as a violation is going to corroborate other evidence in some way you're not this isn't adding something a new element as i think in washington and some of the other cases of this court has decided it's not filling the gap in any of the evidence has very little weight particularly when the the jury's being presented with this this instruction from the court and what the the way the prosecutor argues this and he's talking about i realize he mentions a longer  black trenchcoat but the point of that is to establish that you only think that the is really only real question at this trial which is what what did george williams know what did he what was his state of mind before this happened morgan morgan pled and hadn't been sentenced and there's their account that their testimony that michael rainey was the one who shot this man in the back is entirely consistent with what they told detectives from three weeks after the murder that's exactly what they told the texas the only the only the pennsylvania supreme court's statement that this was harmless or they say they said it was harmless error in effect right they did i think under davis the court he didn't have an axe rhyme with the prosecutor said he's not the best witness he has deficiencies he's trying to lessen the blame on george williams and so the statement really is at the heart of the prosecutor's case that's why he  and that's why he argued throughout closing arguments using the statement there was a plan to rob the old man up the street that is directly from the statement and then he told the jury that if you don't believe my wife insists the same cropper it's what they told you and that's why