maintain a conviction unless it resulted in his decision that was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application have clearly established federal law and the district court in this case did set forth that at the standard in her  has described that as being a very limited standard and it is not something that is just a court disagrees with second guessing a reasonable decisions of district court and it's not even something that's incorrect or iranian leaving open the possibility that it just  court could disagree with a court instead it has to be objectively unreasonable as the difficult to meet and doubly deferential standard the clearly established federal law in this case is jackson versus virginia that after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt and leave that up to try or fact in this case the trial court judge their responsibility to resolve conflicts hypothesis it's worth mentioning again that the district court used the correct at the standard use the correct or sorry listed correct at the standard and the correct jackson standard and noted that the state courts did the preventing to fighting back for the taking of the property and of course armed criminal action doing so with the use of a weapon in this case a concrete block so what were the facts supporting the robbery here the defendant told the victim's friend on his own earlier that evening that he was broke and have any money and there had been previous fiduciary transactions between the victim the defendant earlier that day they were both together at an a t m in which the victim withdrew money and gave it to defend it we have this on video so we know that the defendant knows the victim has money and has been privy to receiving that they were sitting together at a grocery store very close to the a t m about a mile away later on that evening again this you are still together with the money with the ball it's still on the victim  and the defendant killed the victim several hundred yards away from that store and the district court in this case did not take any issue with the finding regarding the murder so we do know for sure that the defendant told the victim the victim's wallet was found outside of that grocery store in a his wallet he also took his hat so what went wrong here they just are courts seem to be hung up on circumstantial evidence of course it's not been the rule for many years in this court or in missouri state courts that the prosecution can't use  was saying earlier that evening that he was broken needed money that the defendant killed the victim just very close to that a t m where the wallet was found right by the crime scene and he also took something else at the same time for the victim's ha t so that being said she agrees kind of argue and oh that there was enough evidence of stealing but not the nexus between the stealing the violence is problematic the knowledge is that the defendant had a meager income but noted that there was no intent to steal from the victim and of course the state does not need to prove motive in the state of missouri and the only two intense that we can find a robbery is he intends to not give the money back so deprive the owner permanently of the money of course he never gave victim the money back because he was dead and the intent to use force to prevent resistance or overcome resistance or retain the property and here we know for sure that the defendants killed the victim  and had used money later on that day that he had earlier the district court point super talented of the attack something from the first circuit first not binding on this court that a brutality of attack is generally points away from robbery of course ignoring the fact that here the defendant was high on cocaine and alcohol at the time of the murder and that could account for the overkill the district court takes issue with the fact that in her words the state didn't present any evidence when within the secret of events the wall of a steak and it could have happened in her words walking to the murder scene the murder and leaving the murder scene of course walking to the murder scene one does not allow your friend to take your wallet from you so it probably didn't happen then walking away from the murder s was no longer near the wallet because the victim was already dead so he was couldn't have taken it then it had to be contemporaneously so it will change the facts a little bit and killed his girlfriend because he had a new girlfriend and then took her wallet to make it look like it was a botched robbery would there be a sufficient nexus there for armed robbery i think the i think the kind of fundamental problem here is that have to be mutually exclusive if you kill your girlfriend because you don't like her or here i don't know what the why but that doesn't mean that it could also be a robbery you didn't kill her you're using violence in the course of taking that w boil it down to a most kind of simplistic scenario armed robbery gone wrong where someone uses force to take a wallet but accidentally maybe kills the victim well if they take the wallet after the victim's already dead it doesn't mean that's an armed robbery it just means that they forced it's so we know that it had to be a contemporaneous taking because that's when the two were together and he didn't just take the wallet he did have as well plus there's a very short amount of time that all of this transpired the district court look two missouri cases rose versus wings to talk about and i think we'll just call it was just disgusting which is when you have a situation where there is no confession or we have a situation where the defendant is not telling us why he did what you know in that case maybe he said i killed my girlfriend but i was trying to hide it here he didn't confess to the murder or to the robbery so the district court kind of says well since we don't have any information from the defendant we can't really know but that can't be the rule either because the state as we all know fairly often tries cases where defendants say nothing or say that they didn't do it and we can't rely on defendants admissions to be able to make our case and that has to be drawn used in the course of as a broad term that covers the entire transaction as long as the fear or the violence precedes or is contemporaneous with the taking the offense of robbery is complete so how would you define the whole transaction case either when the force or the taking of begins until the victim in the defendants are separated either for one reason or another and i mean physically separate and so even if they are one has departed and the defendant is still and then also the state's appellate level but that is not the standard the standard is whether that's objective leon resettle not just whether we disagree with it or we think it's unfair and here it was to any rational trigraph fact we looked at this they could have found a robbery gone wrong or some other version of events contrary to the version that mr harden proffers but contrary to all of those things that he said could have happened many things could happen but this is something where we have a dead victim we have a wallet and a trash can we know that the fed and needed money we know the defendant knew that the victim had money and we know that the defendant took multiple items from the victim at the time of the murder so in that version of events kind of the simplest explanation is that he was high alcohol and cocaine decided that he wanted that money he needed to do things with it whatever the next day pay for rides and decided to either take it and fight with him victim on the course of stealing from him and the course being that broad kind of overall scope of course you can come up with many alternatives but that's not the standard here there are no further questions thank you thank you for your argument analysis of a claim that they used the wrong standard the judge baker used the wrong standard i think that's incorrect that was not raised by counsel's argument but i believe that the  district court judge baker correctly laid out the the hey be a law in and her review and i think she accurately followed that law and it wasn't that judge baker had disagreed or just went against the court of appeals decision is that it appeared that she went through the entire record and she  found a lack of evidence it wasn't it wasn't a competing evidence of one version over the other she found a lack of evidence to support this count the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt and the woman when you talk about the legal standard she has to do more than that right she can't just find there's insufficient evidence to support she has to find that it was under reasonable for the state court to reach the juror correct when when reviewing that she found that it was subjectively reasonable to come to that conclusion based upon the evidence that she did review the entire file all the testimony and the verse roads case she used that as a comparison that it had similar similarities  evidence yet in those cases the the defendant had admitted or made certain missions which that evidence was lacking in this case that's the reason she pointed out those case but what about all the circumstantial evidence taking of the money from the a t m the flawed being recovered later empty in their significant circumstantial evidence here well i think there's circumstantial evidence that supports the the murder but not to the robbery and there was one one sentence that the district court  stated in her opinion that a killer and a thief does not a robber make so i think the evidence that you're talking about that is in the file that is in the case of the district court review i don't think it supports the the robbery there's you know just the circumstantial evidence points more toward the murder the robbery i believe because they're also the and the taking of the money the person being in need of money you know while it being gone and then found empty really doesn't have much to do with the murder doesn't well it could it also like  discussed before could have happened after the murder you mean the theory is that he killed the man for reasons unrelated to money but then thought well as long as he's dead i might as well take the money that something like that right that's one of the i think that's one of the things of the district that taking of the money well i think that's the trouble that the district court had in deciding the cases that is there enough to prove mr harding beyond a reasonable doubt there that would be the argument at trial but here is whether it would be objectively on reasonable for the state court to have found the evidence to be sufficient right and it seems like these are just two alternative hypotheses that both of which are quite possible so how can how is it objectively and reasonable for the state court to have found that it was during the course of the robbery i think it's because of the forcible stealing the the circumstantial evidence that you're referring to i don't think that leads to the forcible stealing that's the robbery that's the part that's missing is that they're in the state at mit's that they don't have that evidence and that they try cases of circumstantial evidence but i think what the district court pointed out is the circumstantial evidence does not point to the forcible stealing part of the robbery the circumstantial evidence may point of other things like the murder but not to the forcible stealing those elements that are missing i think that's what she certainly said there was a gap in the evidence there was no direct evidence as to what happened value in this court i think it's it's focused on just the district court's opinion and the missouri case law and the only two cases that we found where the re roads  appellate decision deferential treatment but just because the poet makes an appellate decision makes its decision we can't just you know in the hay b s world the district court can't just turn a blind eye it has to give an independent review of the evidence and i think that's what mr judge baker did in the case and she found it objective lee and reasonable for this conviction and we have asked th to assume that all of those issues are raised at trial that they were argued and that they were disregarded by the fact finder here which was the trial court judge so we have to assume that they found in favor of the prosecution because the prosecution had proved their case to them and that they chose the path that allowed them to find robbery in the first degree or in this case the judge did that and we have to give that finding deference and that did not happen here it's not to say that this report he was court can't review the evidence she is entitled to do that but what you can't do is freeway the evidence