leaders testimony and really to essentially will stir corroborate a witness who was otherwise very shaky and subject to a very vigorous cross a separation so what i think my question went to and i don't disagree with it but it went to then a confrontation clause occurred evidence to sort of better that the confession was properly tape and then immediately following from that we go to closing where the prosecutor to remove a doubt sat and mr whitaker is the other guy not explicitly i feel   it was very apparent in context where you have mr stewart identifying himself identifying mr shirt who are and then identifying the other guy that's much like this court's precedents where you have one person named i think it's the washington case we had one person named and another person unknown ice that's not good enough if you can sort of figure out there's something amiss if a jury can figure that out that's not enough and even worse here you have one instance think when you look at on balance and i also would submit that when you're dealing with a confession we know how powerful that is and we know that you don't have to trust me says the da top to mr stewart and listen to what mr stewart us to say that's close here i think you put your thumb on scale a little bit because the confession had such a powerful prejudicial thought can i turn your attention to the ineffective assistance going for second  part you correctly point out that there was a good a lot of fodder for cross examination for undermining reliability in the credibility of that testimony maybe a trial counsel was thinking look my strategy here is going to be cut the legs out would demonstrate that this would be contrary to supreme court precedent and only bound to follow that he did the decision even to grant you've got articulated some period of time after the district court ruled it was ruling on supreme court precedent existed when the superior but it's not that it should be ignored it's what is binding what we're talking about here is the standard of this question that was before the state courts subject to debate among reasonable jurists of holdings  and keep telling yes folks who follow travers that they're mistaken in doing that certainly and that existing supreme court process then just quarter fortunately a three judge panel so put them together for us and said this is contrary  here's a good argument i think you could argue it either way and i know you probably would if you couldn't and you had to but really the closing argument is what is what did it right i mean i think the risk of the green drawn ruling was the jurors may very well quit two or two together because they're street people to a name and you're the one sitting at the defendant's table but by the time you get to the closing argument now any chance of the jury not putting two and two together and together they were casing the place this is a bad weather people drinking their answers to muskogee by dancing on the stage and they're looking around their two entrances one is going in and out they're meeting in the bathroom talking to each other and then all at the same time one goes the rounds from the east entrance to the west and to go in since they're sitting right near the break in the bar which normally that's that's very unusual stephen where the on largely that's right so that isn't the problem that the they shared in the proceeds peace is the only piece that comes from the the group in statement and that by implication how they were involved mr whitaker so this is not so what we have here is putting together the pieces of the puzzle from many witnesses so so first have seven people say three robbers did this together comes back to the bar on the other side of the stage and that the two on each side act together pull out their guns and everybody sees that the gun is over at the end all the jury is hearing about this direct evidence if you will with us to model evidence invest because there was a lot more than that and i mean the only real you know that as i read the records i understand the record the only thing we really time whitaker to this other than  was thrown about if you look at it all together in the addition you have the prison conversation which does the he knew chicago or that he was trust trick or to call his family and that's what was subject to a little bit of  as we have corroboration it's not just some kind of crazy story certainly the odds are kind of you know that this would happen but this is this is an unusual situation and they couldn't until he was located in custody when he was brought back counsel made the point that there was no forensic evidence to see that invested as yet fingerprint evidence implicating best his as the shooter yet his court still said that that wasn't enough to overcome the violation i mean if that wasn't enough in this i mean match that up against the jailhouse over here in the jailhouse the late identification no there was