defendant whose statement will be used against both him and the other defendant isn't subject across the night in ramirez or subject across i just don't get better case that was i just don't understand the argument well i think that the idea that the defendant was prejudiced even tell night and testified prejudice favorably to the defendant concerning the underlying facts the defendant has been denied no right protected by the sixteen fourteenth amendment so it looks like it's an author's with this case and goes against you what am i that we've cited in our police free crawford versus washington five forty one us thirty six page fifty nine footnote nine with the united states supreme court said finally we reiterate that when the declar appears for cross examination at trial the confrontation clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior statements simple reason that unlike the three co defendants who were convicted of murder jury acquitted culprits of the murder convicted conspiracy and the sensory after the fact if i got the facts right i'm not prepared to say that we can tell from the record whether culprits was left blameworthy but obviously the jury felt that way by quoting him of the murder so that's what i meant yes so they probably did not i suppose it must have on the on the conspiracy an accessory i'm sure i'm sure did i don't have the germ structures in my specifically but without the intent to commit the target crime of the conspiracy plus one or more of or it actually can have conspiracy under california law and i'm sure what the target crime here was murder what would you know went on inside of cell after the murders was that there was an attempt to clean up the blood spatters and  but i remember reading another case subsequent to this case where there are essentially the same type of testimony came out is basically that the officers of the guards there you know they're there studying for their night school the jenkins daniel jenkins capital case just now pending federal hate b s on the petition has been filed conviction was affirmed and he just denied by the california supreme court but there's extensive reference in there to orders that  been issued over a long period of years by a federal judge and i'm sorry i forgot his name right now and poetically that that order is reviewed and they've made some changes and the only county jail system they tighten things up a little bit but things still aren't really what they should be as of several years ago i can't speak to the conditions there now whether it's as bad as it was when this murder these murders like this murder occurred i can't say only they have locks on the door locks the doors but it probably open them every time they see an inmate without without knowing his his identity you know if you open them remote from a booth they open remotely they have they have cell somebody else we watching on t v somebody to escort them down to the attorney's room but these guys they just get to wander around to what they want it certainly looks like it at the point in time that  occurred most of the most of the complaints about the county jail are going to be monitored by the federal courts and i have to do with overcrowding in adequate medical treatment up putting dangerous inmates together with a vulnerable in mates and that type of thing in adequate space and so on you know obviously if things were going right there would be under federal court order as they have been for many years to improve things apparently some improvements have been made but it's not an ideal situation and they probably need another jail because the overcrowding and we keep reading in the papers that because he was still part of me need to lock the door still well that would be helpful started your time but if you want to take another thirty seconds go ahead