instruction to the jury in this case but the state court finding this the majority of the washington supreme court did say that the special verdict statute that the district court mentioned in the report recommendation  not for it did not apply as it was a civil procedure not a criminal procedure statute but even if it did apply and the special verdicts were special finding only applies to that count on the special homicide and it did not apply to the think the verdicts are inconsistent and the court will not look in the on the verdicts and look into the jury's reason there was discussion in the district court that the don't rule applied in fall was based on your honor because there is no supreme court case on that says that the constitution requires a grant of relief based on a consistent verdict there is no clearly established federal law the state supreme court seems like the district court opinion if i'm there was no clearly established supreme court law that prohibits that that's correct you're on close to saying that relief would be required by clearly established supreme court of law that is correct your honor the john the court got it right in the sense that mr mcneill's convictions violated a clearly state smell of something wrong and reached for a way to get to what might be an equitable result here and i think some of their their logic was good i think they did mistake the standard i would agree with that i don't think we can get past that the word severely established supreme court law that supports your position now here's here's where we get that to that the state  doesn't apply here it's a fundamental problem always true it took with ship to state that clearly jackson comes along and discusses that rule in the more complicated arena maybe it's law where you've got you reviewing says that your so what you're supposed to do is look at the record in the best light of love for the prosecution the record in this case doesn't help us in that way we have a record of the jury and with jackson's implication of substantial deference saying he's not under the influence they then turn around and find that he is guilty of a crime which has element of being under the influence at the same you know because i think as the court says i don't think that's before it i think that there is you know if you turn the jacks if you look at the jackson rule and you've got the verdict on influence and  you've got briefings on the opinion written by the district court where last year you have to come in and sort of agree with mr sampson that the way the judge stated it is incorrect but if you tell us it's inconsistent verdict law does not apply to inconsistent guilty verdicts and it shouldn't it's a completely different cakes inconsistent homicide the elements to complete the picture homicide were that she drove disregarding the safety of others that is an element that they found in convicting in convicting him not the same and i understand that it's possible to view disregard for the safety of others as that a lesser included of reck evidence in this case that was a mistake the jury was told you can and you can rationalize what happened here is i think if procedurally that was the only thing we had i don't even think you could do that because they specifically stated that he  was disregarding the safety of others and that was their conclusion as the element necessary element of a killer homicide went on to find that he was not under the influence and then he went on what they did they went on to find that he was not under the influence you can view those as if they were charged separately try separately but now we have a different case in the inconsistent guilty verdicts where that won't work because a jury found are the questions we should pursue it we'll thank you for your at one or the or the jury found an element was missing on one you cannot later bring them into court because collateral estoppel rescue to cut it would apply but that's how courts set that does not apply here in this case available if the claim is based on the sufficiency of the evidence claiming our position it was not there was clearly sufficient evidence petitioner had a blood level of point three one milligrams of  studies that would cause people to veer from their land of travel as it did in this case there was evidence from the experience trip or an experienced nurse regarding mr mcneill's lethargy even though he had a broken arm  he said yes i believe so your honor i believe i don't know if it was that specific it's been awhile since i've read that part of the record i don't know but i know the jury was polled right kind of like make a difference as to whether they were whether the verdicts may be consistent but the special finding was inconsistent if that's how the case was view that's exactly what how involved and what done involved those cases involve claims were a person was acquitted