prejudicial event i'm not i'm not discounting that fact however ultimately the cases require us to look at the weight of the evidence in the case and we submit that this is a case in which both the victim and another eyewitness identify the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime and given that it is appropriate to engage in a harmless error evaluation of the case we submit that the state court did not act on reasonably in deciding which is you know an argument that i have that there is no namak claim raise my position in this case i could make that one eight well getting to your question directly i think it's somewhat of an overstatement to it is true and i agree with the district court that given the error involved the instructions instructions could not be deemed curative in the purest sense they can't cure the error say but they did reiterate to the jury  a plan for iraq a planning is not an element of robbery the issue in the case was the identity of the perpetrator that was the crucial issue to resolve i would like to address the other claim if only that the states filed in the district court one reference to this i think i can read it and i can also log the dock with the court if the court wants to consider it along with my arguments again my argument remains that that that claim was not preserved by the questioning right at the way you interpret it she took the she continued to take the fifth and heard the substance of her statement kept being inserted before the jury by the very asking of the question i live occasion of the right itself will be there was also this idea that if you keep asking of witnesses repeatedly and insinuating questions or leading talking to us before prosecution witnesses being involved in the two hours that the district court found she was there was a player and she went with the machine know what he was doing presence of the jury and the district court found the same as a matter of federal prosecution or law and i would submit that that twenty that is the claim of whether or not it was appropriate or permissible to put barnum on the stand knowing that she would invoke that that is what difference does that make i mean that the problem is not whether she had a fifth amendment right the problem is whether block has the right not to have her hearsay statements come in but my point their children meant is that that is that right i agree with that but the problem is then to continue questioning her in and implying what her answers would have been when she's not going to testify and i say as a as ms rick i'm not sure that makes any difference because then  point too about goodwin or us about what the jury knew in terms of the role of this witness the jury was a cop it was instructed that the witness was an accomplice as a matter of law and the jury was instructed to leave instructions or in the excerpts to view statements of the accomplice with distrust and finally the only thing i would add as far as prejudices we can count the witnesses we can also count the fact that you know one witness is positive the other says that she certain  have to review that seventy five page refigure with this in mind i don't recall whether the read backwards alleged as an aspect of prejudice in the state appeal so but regardless well but you haven't said that it was  back i don't know it's a little heart of the further i think given i see my time is running out what i would say is that ultimately the question in this case is whether a state court could reasonably conclude