granted relief on two claims first the district court found a violation of brady brady versus maryland because the prosecution allegedly failed to disclose the whereabouts of mr smith and  that is correct your honor i believe one of the claims although we've argued that it was waived ineffective since the counsel on appeal would not result in reverse of the conviction that i believe all the other claims on them alone on their own would result in a reversal of the homeboy comment i would submit that it is not suspect and the reason it is not the same is that there were several references to homeboy and of references to members of the mansfield ga in fact in the redacted confession which is found in particular pages one twenty gauge through one thirty one of the supplemental excerpts of record the term homeboy was used to refer to many people including i believe they were i believe at least two of them work in any case what the statement regarding the home boy and then from mansfield again what the detective was asking mr youngblood was because i believe m then the policeman that minute inquiry looked like what he mean by homeboy so when i when i read what the jury got frankly i'd some trouble figuring out what would that mean to them seemed like something was missing that renders the action fashion properly admitted under richardson first as mark it has to expressly implicate the defendant in order for there to be in confrontation violation and i am i right that the district court here bailey the result was in a confrontation violation and the u s united states supreme court has never or hell that arguments of a prosecutor and arguments of co counsel codefendants counsel ar confrontation class in fact richardson suggests the opposite richardson says when you have the statement that does not express the implicate the defendant and there is a proper instruction not to consider this confession the most about is the prosecutor statement where he was referencing testimony by jerry woman prosecutor said in this supplemental oxygen record two seventy one through seventy two prosecutors started out remember everything in this statement is to be used against mr youngblood this is where you have the moving on to the brady violations which tortoise further questions on the confrontation issue the evidence or the information that was allegedly suppressed was the address and phone number of the mother of mr smith she was not a witness to this case mr smith was not a witness to this case the address and phone number is not information the falls within the parameters of brady versus maryland it is pure speculation called to testify at trial the trial court ruled that even assuming the truth of all these allegations even assuming that the glasses were mr smith and then he was involved in drugs and that he had fights with the victim even assuming all that this evidence was not admissible under the other suspect method for presenting other suspect evidence because they did not their proper proper point four to one of my part about those glasses that mr bailey relies upon is that the glasses were not found in the murder scene they were not found in the apartment with the box with the bodies the murder occur forty five montgomery the glasses were found at two thirty one month cummings so as the trout guy said that even if he could connect these classes to mr smith and it's not even i think it doesn't put him in the apartment for even half the apartment it puts him down the street at some time he could have lost the glasses a week before his own testimony under oath is that he lost his glasses in the wall of the navy and that the glasses found at th not his mr kitchen the prosecutor investigator visibly compared his found at two thirty one montgomery with mr smith's current prescription and noticed that the glasses found at two thirty one you david stepanek representing mr bailey i'm going to focus on the confrontation clause issue if i met this is a case in which the court has to consider should consider the led the state of washington after the murders and he is he is thing lives not only of what i was pushed because of who i know and how they're going to know i mean i was involved because they because i didn't see that and so i'm missing a little bit of this now is not exactly although i do i believe i also cited to the cross examination by co defendants counsel of the detective where he brings out makes this case really on all fours with bruton and by the way that the state could agree that argument was improper but it said well i'm going to deny the mistrial motion because my limiting instruction  associates did it but then you have a knowledgeable person youngbloods lawyer stand up and tell you the someone he was referring to israeli in camp it's no different in any material the defendant that brought us within the brutal rule what would happen here is a lot worse than that we have these neutral pronouns made the but if it wasn't already apparent to the jury the u s supreme court by the way has applied its confrontation rule in settings where it is merely the actions of the prosecutor for example that quest the problem that's douglas the u s supreme court has also anno specific fact but i think it would be absurd that i think the state's argument frankly would lead to observing i mean by their reasoning we could have a trial with a prosecutor or just gets up and says you your honor very briefly the petitioner relies on the douglas case in the donnelly face those are both due process claims and a threat from fourteenth amendment he has not raised to due process claim and before this court of the district court and under this court's case of family members of stuart it is too late for him now to change that the amendment that he is relying on from the surface to the fourteenth amendment there simply is no holding of the united states supreme  court at the arguments of the prosecutor and me and as mr bailey is counsel points out what he really focuses on is the arguments of co defense counsel there's no supreme court case law saying the argument of c that's mr bailey she did not do that the prosecutor did not get up and say you've heard all these statements what we're really referring to is mr vaile there was never any statement such as that this was statements that at the most indirectly link mr youngblood statement to mr v v and as the supreme court held in richardson versus march if you have a properly were jacked escapement inappropriately klim an instruction the fact that this statement is later linked to the defendant through other evidence is not a competition violation the state court's decision was reasonable and even if this court believed a constitutional error occurred that is not enough to supplemental excerpt the record it does refer to the mansfield but it does not expressly refer to mr bailey as that particular mansfield crips gang member this was not a gang of two people the jury could had to do with much later man couldn't possibly be linked to the actual commission of the crime your honor the the the question here is that it is the detective was asking mr youngblood to the person with me was that the killer was on board from as field game so even that statement doesn't limit itself to the person he was was at the time of the crime so while there there may not have been other resources is not the to avoid having multiple witnesses come in and have to testify to different trials and to avoid inconsistent births that's why the state there will be times when the state needs to admit a re