can well i don't think it's it's inconsistent with the language in a style that says that there are certain types of things that cause inherent prejudice where the prejudice can't from the trial transcript where there's a risk of in front of a civil factors coming into play all that language all that language reflects a analysis that doesn't really cannot show a lack of prejudice on a harmless error analysis two very different things all and frankly to use your issue about the if you look at williams versus taylor it's clear that going to jail and going to trial in prison clothes is one of those things that's inherently prejudiced inherently which which is i said means that the defendant does not have to show that he was prejudiced but it does not mean that the government cannot show that it was harmed from yes i understand the court's argument in fact and i understand that this as i said this attentional abandonment of a known right and the courts don't force indulge in every reasonable inference against a waiver of constitutional rights to have a situation where mr smith actually one of them do a very good job at this point the question is does anything he does after that point constitute an intentional waiver or abandonment of a known right and i don't think it does and here's why the first question the court clothes and that's that's reality that's what life is like for prison and the response position which suggests that all he had to do was waltz in there and you know go to the concierge service and have them provided clues is just ridiculous i can tell the court that i as a lawyer how often have a very hard time dealing with jails and prisons trying to get my clients you know the services that they have a right to and so i can imagine the difficulty faced by an incarcerated teenager goes across to get jail would have complied with a court order and i think you can read the statement made by mr smith during the hearing as a pro se perhaps in artful request for such an order you know your honor i want my g l closed and he said he said no it's your problem and most likely you're not going to get it so and under those circumstances i think the reason for him to say continues me was i think it's very similar to what happened in this case the courts case versus  didn't have any money to go out and buy clothes so i think for those reasons there's just not a waiver here and then i'd also like to talk about the legal aspect of it three we're not talking about a waiver of the fundamental right rather still versus williams talks in terms of an objection whereas a waiver a court has an affirmative duty to inquire but here is the petitioners burden to object and in fact to still versus williams notes that in many cases defendants choose to go to trial in jail clothes because they find it to be a tactical advantage so we're not talking about a waiver we're talking about an objection and we have to have a meaningful a judge has the obligation the judge has the obligation to to make sure that the defendant isn't put into that pickle the pickle of being forced to go to access to the clothes no your honor he did not i believe you're mistaken he said she didn't he didn't know whether the jail personnel would give him those clothes or not but there was no there's no sign that he made a request and it was denied if  and i'm suggesting that if he had gone back to the jail and been refused access to his clothes and been told by jail personnel that he needed a court order to get access to his so doing closed and come back the next day and in would be better in this situation too from the government's perspective to admit that the judge made an error but in fact the question is whether it was harmless or well certainly your honor regardless of whether the state court made an  and actually i think the recent decision in most of it and further informs that in mosul again in the supreme court the court was faced with a problem of spectator misconduct and the parties had argued whether the appropriate standards from government misconduct had applied and the supreme court said we can't look to that we have to look to our own jurisprudence as to spectator conduct and we have nothing on the books and therefore the  the test applied by the states courts cannot be unreasonable i think in this case there is simply nothing on the books there is no supreme court holding as to whether chapman is a political to this situation and that instance the california courts cannot be unreasonable in finding that it is right about  a defendant but that's not only not only affecting the defendant's demeanor in court and thus his appearance but his actual substantive ability to assist in his defense unlike jail closer shackling and so i think in that instance th to wear jail clothes at trial is much closer today and i think that's posted by the fact that this court as well as numerous other circuit courts and other state courts have all applied chapman and i think the of application of one of the cars was stolen and he thought the other car was stolen and yet in light of this overwhelming evidence of his guilt the defendant offered to be weak defense that he had not taken the vehicle