court and so we look at the state court decision under that with that lens in mind no way no question about the starting point is that you look at the last recent state court decision that's the arizona court of appeals in this case but as a series of three in the expert of record is the key few pages of documents that should be looked at what happened john harvey adamson's on direct examination he is cross examined thoroughly impeach and all the courts below found about the fact that he's a criminal that he's committed ourselves that he's committed all these other crimes never in the realm of that cross examination this is the defense had anything to show that he is alive i submit to you that if i  senior partner law from back in the days if you can remember those when you were a trial lawyer and said here is a letter that he wrote to his wife what you think you could do with that on cross examination you would be drooling from that day forward until the trial date that letter is an unbelievable source of impeachment and you and i both know i've never been doing this my whole life since i've been about thirteen it seems like anymore i've never had a letter like that as  featured against another witness in that letter he tells his wife number one i'm open for money i'm going to get twenty five percent back from the investigator who's working on this case we can steer this case to where we want it to go i may not be a very good witness i may not be believable i mean change my testimony depending on who pays number one i mean my inflections in my body the aneurysms may be different i may be able to mislead the jury all of that evidence was completely precluded from this trial but we know what's the test the test is you must consider the excluded evidence and when realized to its full potential on cross burke a case where this court recently decided the fact that some was going to get a reduction of sentence under rule thirty five in a plea agreement was admitted wasn't good enough chording to this court you have to allow full cross examination concerning that explosive impeachment evidence available to the defense was precluded we know this is a snitch case in which accomplice testimony was ninety nine percent of the case against max dunlap and the most important evidence was precluded in this case we know how it would be fully rallyists it's not discussed by the arizona court of appeals it's simply not but you're right what do we have in this case minute confrontation years i'm going to argue about that the only thing we have to argue about is whether or not it what the what about they can see affidavit i know that can i divert you to different mountain ways than let's assume that you fall off the mountains you've chosen to climb here and must move to a different mountain or you grab or go to get over the whole range before you get home to approach these days but it's divided into claims and you look at each claim and you say there's an error or there isn't there or if there's error is harmless or it isn't harmless and then you look at collectively  say now looking at all those were those errors was the effect cumulative looking at the errors was there a reversible or wellstone error on which you can grant relief  now that cumulatively was not raised in the state court was that i mean confrontation was divided into several pieces in different claims and those were admittedly raised but  the case into claims which you have to do for purposes of analysis and the court addresses each claim and says error yes or no harmless yes and then at the end you say ok looking at all those errors do they add up to relief that's a separate claim so that was not raised separately yes or no well no to the last question but i disagree with the premise because it doesn't it isn't a separate thing that you're record there then we say under ed the the district court cannot grant any relief on any of those claims and that ends the discussion is that correct no i think you'd have to consider at least the confrontation but if i may for a moment we're just going to disagree on that one i don't want to give that away here no i was not asking you to give it away what i'm asking you is to go with me to the point where you agree that a separate claim cumulative error was not raised in the state court not if you're if you find it has to be explicitly raises an independent separate issue then i don't i can see the point i don't believe that but i guess i'm not sure bear in front of us and we can look at it in the sense that i'm using it look at all the claims as we now do that through an error on which we can grant relief and look at it and say we can do that without reference to yes or no i'm slow maybe because of those other submissions we can add another twenty minutes or so for this case it's an intriguing case there's a lot more to talk about i mean we're not out of school but i want to save at least two and a half minutes so let me just say besides the a impeached he admitted his memory was no good he was contradicted by governor castro the former governor of arizona on the witness stand he's the only other person that says that don bolles was working on camp for marley and rather then i am price in the mafia and the fun family oh my gosh we know that the jury would have considered this quaint reporter's wife's testimony her statements to be considerable all of those independently judge nelson they please the court my name is john as yours i'm insistent arizona attorney general representing respondents in the section my argument this morning i plan to touch upon three of the confrontation clause claims raised by petition parable grand jury testimony in the rosalie bowles statement the first point i'd like to make is that there are clearly four and distinct confrontation clause claims raised by  importantly if we had confrontation clause claims pertaining to one witness in this exam case john adams the fall of these confrontation clause claims went to that one witness that would be a can there be a compelling  assertion that then you would look at the cumulative effect but here we have four separate witnesses in forth or statement so to the extent petitioners claiming any kind of cumulative error doctrine were going confrontation clause is simply not  state simply never addressed the issue because it wasn't raised to the specified claim we in this record industry course you look at the our answer we respond to each substance of claim and we addressed i believe that was wrecked in the situations where there was a argument and did address that and simply said well even if we look at this all together there's there's nothing that that would warrant granting the read but more importantly again the united states supreme court has never held  cumulative error particularly when you consider alleged terrorist pertaining to separate witnesses is a constable claim and under the p f a unless the supreme court has specifically so held simply can't grant relief on that basis misconduct for example because we know there's no such constitutional claim that under the fourteenth amendment the supreme court has told us in donnelly versus you christer fall in other cases that you look at the cumulative effect of the prosecutors allege in this context determine whether the defense due responded correct it wasn't raised this as i recall is a specific freestanding allegation it was discussed when he would suggest the individual confrontation claims not only does the other claims he would say if you add all this together i not my constitutional rights in the rich it should issue but again aside from procedural default the first issue you need to address is whether such a claim is cognizable under the p f a and unless there's a specific supreme court decision so identifiable claim then how can ply to that decision because they didn't ever address it in other words you can't look for some law or any other federal law not announced by the united states supreme court case authority you rely upon to support your argument that if the state court does not rule on the issue and we look at it with a fresh eye limited to the united states supreme court authority been present in the district court the state didn't argue procedural default and there was no underlying federal claim this court couldn't apply the d p a to the state courts resolution that claim because there wouldn't be any and in that instance spork ducted no understand that but that's usually when we are determining under the that the contrary to or unreasonable application of supreme court authority that's not what we're talking about here we're talking about when there has   no ruling by the state court at all so what kinks do you have that addresses that situation i can't think of any off the top of my head but again the whole premises the rich cannot issue but for a violation of federal law as dictated by the supreme court if there's no supreme court precedent on point regardless of whether the state court addressed that issue or not the writ can issue you can't read you can't review the claim because you don't actively be expanding l our supreme court has has dictated like to first discussed is the letter now the arizona court of appeals found that the petitioners confrontation clause rights were violated because the trial court's finding that the letter wasn't particularly material or probative precluded defense counsel from reading certain portions of that letter in his cross examination of john adams i would point out that the major portion of letter housed whether i will be an excellent believable witness with no mistakes or with the possibility of my making an honest nervous mistake on the stand interest some of the individuals involved that was read to the jerks so they had that information before them admittedly his confrontation clause rights were violated because the portion right before the portion right after one counsel one to read those the court said no now the portion right before that is simply adam since speculating that playboy magazine might be interested in his story for a price it's not only this case you have with kate several people in several different crimes and also bear in mind this was within a few months of when adamson was arrested he hadn't entered any kind of agreement done like had been char so that beginning portion really doesn't add anything to to the impeachment value the portion right after that simply verifies the portion i just read and clarifies that for a price he might be willing to shave his testimony but it would be to benefit other individuals such as as as dunlap not to lie to implicate them but just the opposite he would actually he might be willing to like i said test to find such a matter that that might benefit other individuals admittedly we have a confrontation clause violation in the arizona court of appeals so found but their application of chapter chapman standard to the facts of this claim case are eminently reasonable now in addition to the fact that the main impeaching portion of letter was in fact read the court of appeals pointed out that adamson himself and he was i might add he was cross examined for about two and a half days and his credibility was thoroughly impeached he admitted that he had lied to both state and federal investigators he admitted lying when it serves his purposes and he admitted committing numerous crimes and several including several bombings numerous insurance frauds and more than forty burglaries this cross examine for two and a half days he was cross examined with other letters he wrote that were were that were then impeached worse than this letter including one letter to his wife where he claimed i'm not involved in this at all and given enough time and resources i can prove it i mean that that to me is it's devastating he's saying that this this is all a sham and he was cross examined with that letter he had knowledge writing it and just said you know what is true tom pelphrey don't you think it's pretty implicated himself and so many ways i mean he delivers the fifty eight hundred dollars payment to adams and less than a week after the bombing he gets five thousand dollars the day before from camp or marley he lies to the investigator sellers about the delivery first doesn't say anything about it at all when evidence is developed through the receptionist at the attorney's office he acknowledges that yeah i did deliver the money but he claims doesn't say anything about absent being there later on when it's shown that he didn't meet with adams and he said ok adams who was there but i didn't talk to him then later on when when it's proven that he he had met behind closed doors for fifteen minutes you said look at talk to him for ten minutes that all of dunlap's actions corroborate cation you still need a supreme court decision in order to grant relief i'm paraphrasing a supreme court decision recognizing a constitutional right ok so that intrigued me so i went back to the that was adjudicated on the merits in the state court proceeding unless it you claim resulted in a decision that was contrary to the supreme court decision or resulted in a decision based on an unreasonable determination the fact where do you have a stand alone requirement that there has to be a supreme court decision before you can grant relief to write in that language and any exceptions that language is is what the courts talking about where the state courts jails to address the issue then you don't you can apply the a reasonable dishcloths because it hasn't been addressed but it has to be a federal law as the term federal constitutional law as determined by the supreme court that's that's the basis for granting the the only reason you would apply the end result of this language is if the state court didn't address the claim but this is all tied to state court decision in other words the supreme court decision of the requirement that has to be the supreme court decision and not a court of then the on reasonable missed part of that can't be applied but the fact that the supreme it's supreme court precedent announcing that the rule hastert has to exist to grant the rest of what cases that i you know i believe the ruling again all i can tell you is unless there is there's a violation of federal constitutional was announced by the supreme court the return at issue i believe they're probably cases right on point dealing with the situation that i  need the other problem you need the constitutional right as announced by the supreme court if the defendant had raised that claim below say a confrontation clause claim it wasn't addressed on appeal or in district court you couldn't appl a bone provided the key testimony on that against backs down he wasn't cross examined and this arizona court applied the wrong standard it looked at conlon and martini from this court which did not apply the intrinsic