s i don't like factors behind a number of points in chambers and i want you to start with the corroboration issue because to be honest the autopsy in this case seems more corroborating of the state's theory to me than it does of anything mr johnson is trying to say most of the impressions founder consistent with fist contact there are two linear things but they could be a shoe just as much as a bat and when you add that to the testimony of the person who went and stayed at the house until the wee hours of the morning i just find it hard to see this is evidence that seems reliable enough to to be brought in well ok so i'm dr typically over that although they could have been caused by a shoe or even potentially of this they were more likely to have been caused by some sort of when your object  object but i understand he says the overwhelming number of contusions appear before affairs and then there are these other two things that but he's quite clear that it could be a shoot to mean the edge of some shoes i don't know what kind of shoes people are wearing then but certainly the edge of some sorts of shoes that you might be wearing in late november in northern illinois could leave a linear mark so made this confession in prison and made it at a time when the news of the killing cannot become public and he also had and you're talking about the statements of the cellmate that the physical and the state courts worried about  because the cellmates just kind of this random person it's not as in chambers somebody who was well known to the defendant right but it was made you know i don't think that one factor is dispositive it was made no one factor group you on that but the thing is you're saying that the way the state court in this instance apply chambers was an unreasonable applicant that it recognizes chambers is there we don't have a contrary to case but it was an unreasonable application and then one of course when you dig back into what i'm reasonable means it's a high bar right i understand and so i think you know the this court addressed the winning principles of chambers in the cuckoos not too long ago and you know there were there the court found that there are a variety of weston's that can be applied to cases like this recognizing that you know none of these cases are going to be black or white and they're always going to come down to a variety of factors and i think when you go through those lessons that that this court recently  recently found they all point in favor of admitting messina's confession so if you just start you know with with the list here the first is that you can the cases all involve a murder and no substantial sentence here we have a first degree murder case mr johnson was convicted at the age of nineteen and sends to thirty five years in prison he was basically a child at the time of his conviction there was no evidence in the record that say that they seem so wrong about this that this story about hiring two men to go kill this guy with baseball bats is basically not terribly persuasive he's been beaten his body is found in exactly the same place in the back yard where the eyewitness saw it there the timing is weird the autopsy doesn't help it getting to reliability that so strong that it should override what the state court thought is is a tall order your honor i would suggest that reliability and plausibility are two different things that you're talking about sounds to me like crazy the first thing you need to do is credit all of the prosecution's witnesses and i don't think there's any basis to do that but who says the body didn't lie there in the backyard all all night you know he admits that he beat up mr keillor instead there was a non fatal physical altercation exactly so so he could he himself agrees that we get to the point where kiefer is lying down the back yard and there he is the next testified that she came back to the house at two am and saw the body supposedly in the same spot she never contacted police she may have had a motive to lie i mean you have to credit that testimony i mean she was involved in this drug dealing conspiracy from the beginning another of the state's witnesses i believe his name bernie williams that's right a friend who came over and stayed the night so i think you know i think to credit there's this theory that oh it's totally implausible you first have to you know credit all the witnesses a trial and then you get into whether there's an element of arbitrariness to you to credit all the prosecution witnesses but to you you know immediately question if the one piece of persuasive evidence that that that mr johnson tried to admit that support his theory of the facts right that this may be a persuasive argument if we had plenary plenary review here but we don't you have to filter this through twenty fifty four d and extremely deferential standard even if it's incorrect and the evidence should have been admitted he's got a higher bar right and i made the here would have been for them to review the issue of illinois evidentiary law first under an abuse of discretion standard and then to the extent that chambers applies it would have taken the next step of  of deciding nevertheless you know whether chambers can towels the statements admission and i think the mistake or only did the first step here which is pretty evident in their brief so i think they applied the wrong standard i don't and then it did a chambers analysis as cited chambers went through the chambers fact that chambers factors concluded that the same and was not reliable enough for admission under chambers and that it concluded that because the statement didn't have to be administered meted under chambers present a defense is balanced against the interests that we was in crane if you kentucky is supreme court said but we also need to consider the interest in preserving the integrity of the adversarial process and which only reliable evidence is presented and unreliable evidence is excluded and what chambers does is tell us that evidence to overcome an otherwise constitutional state hearsay bar used to be sufficiently reliable and critical to the fence and chambers although i factors what it does for the purpose of application to other cases that are not actually identical is not such the threshold the reliability the threshold that the evidence must meet for admission over the state evidentiary bar and so when you're going through the chambers factors it's not an exercise in nose counting but it's rather a fairly substantial application of of judgment because whether you look at if you look at the first factor was the statement made spontaneously to a close acquaintance shortly after the time well how spontaneously how close in the coins right how shortly after the event because all of those three parts of that first factor admit to a wide range of answers and depending on where you fall in the spectrum of any one of those things it will provide a more or less persuasive assurance of trustworthiness not only that's what chambers asked us to do is to look at it circumstances and see whether the aggregate all of the assurances of trustworthiness are sufficiently persuasive to reach the threshold and establish in chambers and here a fair minded jurist it certainly disagree that the assurances of trusting us provided by the various considerations in this case met the threshold in chambers so that first factor was made to a close acquaintance spontaneously short shortly after well it was made presumably after the  crime we don't have anything the record saying exactly when it was made but it was made to a cell mate and as the state court noted there's nothing in the record to suggest the cellmate was of any particularly close acquaintance we don't know how long their cell mates for we don't know if they're related they discussed personal matters we don't know anything about the relationship at all and it's certainly reasonable to find that that first factor provides a less waste of assurance of reliability then did the first factor in chambers where the statements were made to close friends immediately after the crime and the morning after the crime moving on the second factor corroboration obviously there are different degrees of provocation and chambers it was really an extraordinary degree of corroboration there was the condition to the number of of confessions of hearsay confessions the wreath three there's also the declarant sworn written confession and then i would his testimony that he had actually shot the victim that you seen with subsequently beaten to death and then that's the end of it the the physical evidence is far more consistent with the testimony not only of schlosser but of the petitioner the medical examiner said that the evidence  is far less persuasive than that in chambers and to the point that well it wasn't publicized in the newspaper until later the following tuesday that doesn't mean that kiefer's death was a secret from the community so how do you get from i mean i can see that as a good argument for men but missing me apparently it's in the i don't know whether it's that evening after kiefer beats him up or with sorry after people would know if it's made by you know ten o'clock the next morning may be were to start and spread somehow and had there been i had there been a proffer had a man and been brought in to testify and he he said this is wh we have is that he was told some time before he was released at nine am on the following tuesday which means that we have this universe of people who knew about the death monday morning we have all the police  the other thing is that the why don't wander by this body and me it really it's in the backyard it's in the backyard and it's only walled off by by police tape so anyone who want to buy sees it and the whiteside kind of jail is not in an information tight environment right every police officer who takes someone they've arrested on saturday to the jail if the police officer knew about it they could have told some of the jail person they bring could have told jail although it was in the local  newspaper the local hard copy newspapers no longer the only way the people get the crime information certainly the local television news could have covered the murder on monday night and who knows whether there was a television on at the jail or whether their television on somewhere else in the community and then chambers and the subsequent line of cases green and green and rock and so on ultimately what cook holds is that the evidence that was excluded in coach was both reliable and critical to the defense and that's exactly what chambers requires it says the givens must be you must be listening at least this tall to ride the evidence must be at least this reliable for admission and it cooks the court held that that evidence was unusually reliable and was also critical to the fence and these that in this case that encroaches cooks the case was entirely circumstantial and of course circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt it is somewhat more vulnerable to being undermined if one can challenge one of the links in the circumstantial chain so in cups the question was whether he had murdered the victims within this relatively narrow window and excluded evidence would have conclusively prove that they were not murdered within that window here petitioner testified fishwick thank you your honor just on the issue of corroboration and reliability i want to look back at kooks for a minute because in that case amanda statement was not corroborated by anything other than her acdonald the the the killer in chambers had repudiated his confessions but the court group gave a lot of weight to the fact that he would be available for cross examination of the jury would have a chance to view his demeanor when he was being and the court will be in rece