four witnesses the did testify and there were the police officer the detective that was in charge testified regarding four the decisions of the state court that there was no prejudice here whether whether those decisions are entitled to deference or not and i will tell you i think i think it's close tower who expressed some ambivalence about whether she thought that your client had committed the robbery we still have the positive identifications from his ex wife and  and it was very troubling when i was reading the records way the questions were only she could not she was looking at pictures she never said she never testimony we still have asked him only positive identification from the ex wife and then niece ashley and i'm not talking about discounting the testimony from the stepmother because she clearly  but even if we did count all of the problematic identifications we still have two identifications that on the face of the testimony don't appear to have any significant client and so from that fact what does that mean for a deeper deference does the fact that the state court relied on that fact in making its prejudiced finding call that into question for deeper itself sufficient to find there was no reasonable probability of a different result i agree with you your honor i'm not sure i'm making a point i'm merely asking a question i honestly don't know and i'm asking what are your thoughts on  when you look at the totality and the different task he clearly was prejudiced by and they not only said it during the trial they say it in closing argument that there was an identity and without anything out no fingerprints no d n a actually excluded tarling ten you cannot say that the result would not have been different had these people not been able to testify honor what she did was she didn't identify the photo as pilots and she picked differences in the photos the testimony was a disturbing i believe the man got thirty years for a crime he says he didn't commit she said she didn't actually connect that photo  purposes of this response that the the district i'm sorry to say court judges finding that the power definitely identified carlson is wrong and that the  and on top of that there were you know there was this evidence that came from the law enforcement officer the agent who testified that brought in other hearsay evidence that's the problem that we all admit and agree is a problem then it becomes it becomes a closer question on prejudice doesn't it i mean if all you're left with are identification from people who were biased against him then niece wasn't completely unbiased she said that the defendant should go to jail that he should go to prison and so what i'm asking you is doesn't that then change the calculus of what we're looking at in determining whether there was prejudice or not because now we're left with one witness who doesn't seem to have an axe to grind that doesn't you know who hasn't expressed something that clearly that in a minute they still had and the state pointed them to it at the very beginning of the posing are going to look at the photographs look at these photographs compare them to what the teller sa taken from the surveillance video and the jury actually asked a question about those about those photographs so the jury was clearly focused on that so  context of how the investigation proceed and prosecutions tend to do that now that police presence procedurals are so popular fiction and on television so he went through this and went through all of these all of the people that he talked to he said he got anonymous tips from crime stoppers i don't see how that how that's prejudicial at all to the to the did not identify him and to the witnesses that place complained about james carleton and his wife that came out on cross examination not on not  understand you to be saying that in determining the prejudice analysis whether we're looking at it to know that we're under the on the other side of the scale that this hearsay evidence one was a tip that indicated somebody else did it not the defendant and that was used by counsel in closing argument to argue that the defendant didn't do it and the other one was no better it was was solicited on cross in other words it was already before the jury when when the government pointed out and was no better than that two people said it could possibly be or might pilar i think it's pronounced maybe killers this court set out spies factors that would be relevant under under chapman how the witness's testimony was to the categories argued the evidence was quite strong the jury was not out more than ninety minutes and some of that was spent looking at you know asking a that makes sense  for hear again from this forgotten yes thank you the whole feature of the case was that nobody knows you but your family and they hit that this time this police officer actually said what tip was providing the two different names and he also testified that the claim stop is to provide the address that he went to like the no one knows you just like your family does that's a bit of a two edged sword for prejudice purposes and not because the defense counsel made a lot of use of the fact that some pretty close family members could not positively id him for example  own the jury already heard it by the time the state did that i just have a hard time understanding how that argument wasn't exactly the defense that was brought out here about he didn't do it and we know we didn't do it because it's close family members are looking at him the and we're highlights of the defense closing argument for why the defendant didn't do it i don't i don't believe that they helped them believe that they helped defense at all and i'm just going to stand on my br