violation and if we have time to get to the doyle versus a violation within a framework about ineffective assistance of playing the factor briefly just the brian johnston shot his friend david sullivan six times and just a few hours later he was in quick succession civilly committed as mentally ill and posing a risk of serious harm he's been placed under arrest for murder he's been examined at the jail and then he's committed to bridgewater state hospital a mentally ill prisoner along the way he asked for his counsel numerous times and then a trial the jury received substantial evidence of johnston statements to bridgwater after he made those indications and so the question is as to do no one would be under constant versus williams the supreme court's case whether this court reviews under the a t p a reasonable application standard or correct and here's why the statements that need to go out are the ones where he's speaking to any number of jail or bridgewater staff not the formalized interview the commonwealth had three formal interviews that they were entitled team is they got a reciprocal opportunity which is what you can in stone versus smith and they all say the commonwealth has a reciprocal opportunity and it comprised those those interviews comply with the fifth amendment requirement in it is which is after you you can vote your right to counsel for the questioning has to take place in the presence of counsel or to all statements is according to him this is whether it's an objectively likely to elicit incriminating response from the government after these are government actors it's clear that mental health would play a central role in johnston's case context is everyone knows that bridgewater records are going to be seen done by the commonwealth and those doctors and those records and those mental health workers are better be called on to testify at trial it was to determine whether he was a mentally ill prisoner not capable of serving out his detention in a regular facility ok if i correct that  no no my my my position is any statements that he made in his interviews with dr peoples at bridgewater and the name of the doctor at affirmatively explaining its opinion the way you read it that they didn't understand making that argument they can file a motion for reconsideration in this context i think not because see one  reconsider me because i was i could not have the we were in my reply  o moreover if you compare my brief to their decision they specifically address every claim i make in that rather lengthy grief this is the only one on in their in their heads so to speak all we need to do is to say it's clear they didn't decide it they have seen the claim but they didn't decide it and there's no subsequent sheoak here because of the context because first response is that i don't think it's correct to assume a subsequent show here in terms of it to know what we're view because if you mean johnson versus williams they say even a verdict such a tragic case but yes this was for the jury be they only talk about the degree of guilt and so forth they don't say anything why i don't consider the other claims me deny them without further discussion questions if you them is whether or not these statements should come in so i think immediately if it is that brought to their attention they also talk about the right to remain silent and they claim that's not what was going on here again that's a fifth amendment issue so the fifth amendment was before them and i think if to what's happening in this case i don't think it's a case in which he as you see completely missed it i don't think it's a case in which the f c c misunderstood i think the chose to look at it through the sixth amendment because this is a post terry this is kind of a rest type situation this is somebody who really knew better bested and arranged it was being held and while he was being held in the house of corrections had exhibited some behavior that was concerning and so then he have pursued such a motion why it's not correct but i think that part of the reason in this case it is that wide certainly through the record and certainly as you go through the trial this was his strategy session with as i understand it his strategy seems to be that he assumed the stuff was coming in and the prosecution was going to put it in so therefore he decided a preemptive strike to spend his way good strategy if you no but the premise of the appeal here is that this was excludable and it was clearly the school to pull if that's the case and you think it hurts you the premises and to let it in and preempt the i mean the strategies going to home professionals so you want to get to a point where there might be something that would come out even under under your situation even closed so it's sort of it's sort of hard to get to that hypothetical but i suppose if there was because again if you're putting forth an insanity defense these are records that every single expert in this case review so if you're just seeking out his statements which i believe is the argument the rest of the records come in the fact that he was submitted to a section eighteen review  specifically points out when he's talking about this issue for mental health professionals we're looking at something different than what the jury would be looking at which is important because that's essentially what the commonwealth has been arguing in this case is saying you know case that addresses this specific issue and can't get over that it's still kind of comes closely but the supreme court itself talks about how it's limited to this circumstance that that case that had been undergoing a different