the case low it's clear that that evidence you're hearing shall take place if the state wanted to change its mind about conceding to the seventh year of hearing or if they disagreed with judge her for she's rowing they could have filed a motion to reconsider that decision within thirty days they did not do so instead or no or various reasons the case essentially you know entered into a kind of a some kind of another world where it remains at second stage posture whether just kind of knew that or not it's not clear from the record but the bottom line is that there's the state can point to no mechanism that's an act or any law or anything else still allows judge her to choose order to essentially ignore the be a horrible precedent for this court to say so the simplest course for this courts is to just really remain on the case or that evidence you're hearing the judge were to she granted their teen years ago that's the the cleanest way for this case to be absolved at this  and the stick piggybacks on these arguments in its response is that they point out that there was a jury trial for gaucho it wasn't a bench trial and they also argue that show can't point to a specific ruling that baloney made that would demonstrate as a person i from without pointing to a specific action that's the judge in that case made it you can and said you can show by if there's a compensatory bias you can show it's up that's enough to satisfy the court looked at that situation so it doesn't matter that the bennett cannot point to a specific ruling that the judge made in the jury trial the question is whether they were that whether they were impartial if there was a chance that the judge in that situation c where you don't have to show specific ruin it makes sense in particular with someone like alone where his history of corruption is well documented no judge is going to admit that they were partial or admit that except that  question you can't you can't you can't get rid of the taint i mean the seventh circuit i think put it best where you know there is a presumption with judges that they're a party and rightfully so but someone like maloney with this history of ago and its failure to do so would be a profound injustice even if this court decides to get into the into the substance of got shows post conviction claim at this point then because it wasn't there at the second stage th order that was issued thirteen fourteen years ago what it can do is address the question of ineffective or unreasonable assistance of those conditions counsel because that would provide can write why can't we send a pic for hearing because the defendant came into court to lose track of his of his of his own case he came into court filing a a pleading that had already been filed and litigated essentially giving a court of the state an invitation to file a motion to dismiss which the court the was convicted in a bench trial so judge close had a motivation for being compensatory really i guess against the defendant carlino that motivation does not exist in our case the fact that it is a jury the jury as a not to protect the thank the t of the judicial system under the sun and if you take it on a case by case basis then yes in this case it is because the supreme court examined this case on corr makes it simpler to bracy collins first show me and wished that same thing happened and in that case the district court judge went through the entire trial record looking for something in the record that w i'm reasonable ruling a biased ruling something that could influence the jury like against the two defendants and found nothing but he went through the record in the sentencing phase and found that there was improper arguments that the judge allowed exactly as it happened in factual and in that case the seventh circuit said that they were able to show the nexus and the actual bias that is required but only in the sentencing por but look at this look at this way he like eat he got a second stage period i'm i'm his petition he got a right to preset his allegations that he was the victim of mona's corruption to circuit really happens if if if the court decides that it's the state's burden as at least once a circuit decision requires do we get a chance then to plead in the circuit court you know letters argument or do we have to just say sorry but everybody's dead