this young family mrs ford the three year olds and the soon to be born child their brutal murder and their subsequent arson of their bodies it's equally disturbing that mr ford a young man of significant academic and athletic accomplishment highly regarded by his family friends and coworkers was con about the fact that it's equally troubling that mr ford after his jury trial came forward was able to produce significant new evidence that went with the evidence he presented a trial could have raised a reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator of the murders and the state court and the prosecution disallowed prevented him from introducing this evidence that's the problem here in federal court now and it sounds to me as though you're simply really arguing questions of state law where your state where in the state process was a federal claim clearly and we acknowledge your honor that there is a very high threshold is a very high standard that this court must employ to look at what the state court did and that it must the state court m violated or the state court proceedings master violated a fundamental constitutional right and then to get here he has what he has to articulated a claim in terms of pretty precise federal terms yes and i think what we did your honor in the briefs and what i'd like to articulate a little bit proceedings in the motion for new trial the evidence was set that by the denial of his right to present this new evidence that he was precluded from raising a reasonable doubt as to his guilt amendment right to i i believe raise a reasonable doubt as i do seems to me that in the state court proceeding they did give him the opportunity to have a hearing in t when is it the obligation of the prosecutor to grant immunity and to require him to testify and it seems to me that there are a discretionary determination by the prosecutor also at this point i'm going to i'm not going to take the knowledge that we're not talking here in terms of the motion for new trial the process violation in terms of mr ford's testimony at the motion for  trial or the affidavit of and testimony of this parents i think that that alone even if that were considered to be new evidence would not justify a new trial i think that's basically irrelevant the this case is the fact that rockland riggs testimony stating that he had another individual case the house within a week of the murders is what we're looking at and that taken conjunction with evidence that mr ford had no control over suggesting that there had been a burglary i'm talking about the unusual activity of cars seen in the area at the murder more specifically the testimony of howard wood that he is certain that he saw and usual car in the four dry way around seven fifteen the murder the more the morning of the murder that testimony taken together that could have raised the reasonable doubt i'm going to focus first of all your honor if i can take it backward what's the california decision that was involved them reasonable application of federal or was contrary to federal law required by twenty two fifty four and what's the distinction that you want to focus on i would like to i'd like to look at to look at that in terms of the california decision your honor i'm going to look at people first of all because i think what we're talking about in terms of the raising of the reasonable doubt that the trial court did no analysis of mr rich his testimony in terms of how it could have raised a reasonable doubt and therefore the state court the court of appeals talked about this which was they stated that mister mr or it would have done nothing to prove that anyone other than the defendant had murdered his family at most indicated well a self styled burglar with checking out defendants block a possible crime scene a week before the murders but the possibility that we'll have the motive an opportunity to invade defendants house on the day of the murders falls far short of evidence tending to prove that will did so let alone that he committed murders there when a new trial on the theory that third party committed the crime letter and then taking the fifth amendment and what do you do when i don't i don't if you don't allow it in you get a new threat i don't think that's the case ron i think that was just because the circumstances under which mr ford brought this information to the trial court were unusual and very narrow we have to and i say we the district court had to link the tape recorded statements that were taken by the prosecutor that she was unavailable in order for the trial court to rule that he was unavailable to testify the trial court i believe under the california evidence code sections in the prevailing case about how i just find that this is a really disturbing case and my client obviously is very concerned his family and i want to make certain that the correct information gets before the court and i just can't walk you back because i lost track you were district court adopts the statement that even you know there's supposedly exculpatory evidence came in and it was not enough to change the outcome we're on of the are you attacking that finding or or are you attacking the grand the failure to grant immunity well this comes in a package and i think there's several steps the final i think the final step that we need to look at and the reasonable doubt we're not just talking about supreme court justice we're talking about the federal constitution and we are aware your honor that again this is a very high standard i believe that the district the trial court and the court of appeal court of appeals erred in not correctly applying high which doesn't say that you have to show somebody else did it the evidence needs to simply be able to receive reasonable doubt and in conjunction with the evidence that was presented by mr for trial which is outside of his ability to so what do you think federal law required the california courts to do with all of this material that we're talking about when it was under the apple i mean i think what was what were the california courts required to do with what i think the california court should have done and what it did not do and was a but therefore a violation of mr ford's right to raise a reasonable doubt nothing else your honor the better i don't require you from terms of reviewing this needs to look at the fundamental fairness that was not given mr ford by not allowing him to raised a reasonable doubt by having a new trial with the evidence that was available that's why i'm worried that you said that you're to follow your line of thinking says anybody who comes in with a letter from somebody and present gets a new trial federal law requires  complete the entire analysis they didn't look at the evidence that was presented at the trial that there could have been a burglary evidence outside the information or what occurred in the house which was evil in california cour a very disturbing that mr ford and his counsel did every single thing that they could to bring this evidence before the court and were prevented by doing so by the prosecution the  immunity and he did not do so i agree your honor that this is an unusual case i agree that the standard just very high that this court has these dorothy in certain instances to look at  state court proceeding and say that it was still fundamentally unfair that we are going to reverse that proceeding and i think because of the significant evidence that mr riggs could have presented at retrial which was admissible under evidence code section twelve thirty showing that another person could have proved that could have committed the murders in conjunction with the evidence that was presented at trial that this is the case in which the the federal court so that the california courts committed a violation of mr ford's due process right i think i would like with the court's permission to reserve my next three minutes and thirteen seconds  please the court just wryly on behalf of the attorney general for appellant the state of california and you know code section eleven eighty one has set of requirements for the defendant must meet in order to receive a new trial on the basis of evidence both at trial and being proffered so are we supposed to just ignore that out of this with if we were to conclude that this is a compelling case where the suggestion that this fellow will was actually casing the neighborhood fits in with all of the other facts that the defendant shouldn't have had the opportunity to quit that before the jury he couldn't reasonably have found it out before that time because he didn't have all of the appropriate evidence now he's got it and should be given the opportunity to be tried by a jury with all of the evidence that would determine whether or not he really did commit th e there was so yes it's i believe it's all circumstantial but it's pretty overwhelming circumstantial and you say the trial court went through and analyzed how it didn't the  all of the circumstances about the gasoline and everything else and then along comes this fellow riggs who says look there were cars there were other cars in the neighborhood and then riggs comes along and says look i was with this guy will and we were actually casing this neighborhood and we were actually sizing up this very house and you know and so why does that not dovetail or or is that why isn't that consistent with corroborated evidence that's in the record in the first trial or proffered as part of the statement of the others that are being brought forward for on the motion for new trial why is rigged sort of so off the it wouldn't fit into and be totally consistent with what ford's defense was it doesn't explain it doesn't help to explain the other circumstantial evidence such  gasoline in his car the scratch on his face was already explained right and told the questioners if that's you know if that's a toss up in the jury's mind and they resolved that beyond a reasonable doubt absent some plausible evidence that there really was somebody else around you know i think that would affect the jury's determination on a retrial or on a new trial to link these statements from defense counsel investigators going into detail about how this how these events came took place the location ridge said i know who committed the murder of a man can  what you did say is i was with will in this specific location at about five thirty in the morning one week before the murder will it was a self described burglar i know where it was i know what the street looks like i know what the house looked like i know what mr ford looked like and one week later there is a murder in the house and there is evidence that i some what occurred in the house like to look at this evidence in the light best light for the prosecution if the prosecution considers mr ford guilt guilty he was convicted this was quite certainly had control over what occurred inside the house in terms of staging a burglary but he didn't have any control over what occurred outside of the house and is i'm controverted testimony by a very credible witness that there was an unusual car at seven fifteen in the morning of the murders parked in the driveway of the for then it alone could not would not be the basis for a new trial but taken in conjunction with other evidence that was presented to the trial court it could raise  trial and in this was such an egregious violation of mister ford's right to raise a reasonable doubt that this is the kind of situation that the