he had at the time he filed a court and then anything else to introduce that and then the district court looked at it and said ok that's letter is enough to convince us that mr garcia would have accepted this offer had seem to be absolutely correct in that case affidavit because because the state court initially said the affidavit is hearsay but then it went on to say and any event and i think that means the way i write in my briefs and the way i've seen other federal opinions in any event means even if we were to consider this for the truth of the matter asserted he has shown no prejudice and i think the problem that happened in the district court ho what the maximum sentence would be like you know he was missing but that wouldn't be prejudicial wouldn't matter what he was told so we're down to a legal question under the then there was no no evidence in the record there was no weapon found in his home you know they had the entire record of the trial before and it was a very both under twenty to fifty four d one and two it conducted an intrinsic review despite the fact that the law in taylor would be developed later after conducting that intrinsic review it determined that the fact finding process in a state court was deficient at that point under taylor he won and the presumption of correctness do not apply the problems that existed in the state court is three fault first the state court made evidentiary findings without holding a hearing and did not give the petitioner an opportunity to present in taylor i paid one thousand and one state court fact finding process is undermined when the state court has before it yet apparently ignores evidence that supports the pla chooses to accept the other the fact that he's a boy i was prejudiced but that hardly goes very far but it doesn't and he didn't give me his letter by the way not that i think it's letters very very significant but he didn't get in the letter is that right he didn't made by his trial counsel out of context trial counsel was not called upon as trial counsel was in lambert's to submit to a deposition about how he counseled petitioner and whether petitioner would have taken the deal had he known the correct maximum what the state court did is take a statement made in the context of an attorney that in for a while sentence not called upon to explain his actions and that is what the district court upon in this case that for that to be the reason to find no prejudice was the jackson family on reasonable that is why the district court granted a hearing in it concluded that the fact finding process was deficient and in doing so in taking that statement out of context it does not in any way give any credit to the contrary declaration of garcia it just says here is the statement of counsel and  basically makes the credibility determination about mr garcias declaration without giving him an opportunity to be heard and that was the problem in union as in noon yesterday the court took the declaration and just missed it and look for other both subsections do you one is one of the district court can find that the state courts application of the facts to the law was unreasonable due to is when they find that the determination of the facts was fails then there is no need to cloak those findings in a presumption of correctness the district court at one thousand and one in taylor one thousand and eight when it is determined that the state court fact finding is unreasonable the district court has an obligation to set aside those findings and if necessary make new findings that's taylor one thousand and eight that is what the district court did in this case there is nothing wrong with the legal standard employed and there is nothing wrong with the process that the district court went through conducted the hearing because the state court didn't do its job if the state court wants t he was mistaken to hit mr garcia over the head and forced him to take the offer at the time he would have known that his the finest about the maximum term was incorrect but he didn't and he said he was making a mistake he's sitting there he's pleading for mercy and he claims to have made a mistake but he didn't say anything about mr garcia would have taken this deal if i hadn't told him at the maximum sentence basically he's saying i made a mistake because i didn't hit him over the head with a pan and forced him to take that sentence because he really didn't want to take a thirteen year offer given that he was only nineteen years old at the time so