there your honor your honor is in this case i think that the biggest issue that we're dealing with is the failure of the district court to review at statement of facts that is taken directly from the state court decision but it does not represent the way the actual record of the trial and many of the issues in this case are directly as to whether or not the state courts factual determinations are reasonable because that's part of the term in the reasonableness of the ruling itself  which way is up the court of appeals made some pretty specific quotes from the record quite extensively is it something you think that you can point to that the district court  appeals resolved that in large part by saying that mr sanchez had shown that the witness could they have actually seen any images that were taken from the arraignment she may have seen  other news coverage or something but we don't know because we don't have a record in front of this what her actual testimony was and whether or not that's a reasonable interpretation of her testimony and i think that's at what occurred according to the state court of appeals the mr sanchez trial counsel did not make any attempt to actually suppress the  court of appeals said well that was a legitimate trial tracking but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever no rational reasonable turkey would forego a potentially successful suppression motion in an aggravated murder trial in order to save it for a firearms charge that just is nonsense so that's not a reasonable interpretation of the record by the for his testimony there were a couple of other witnesses who testified that mr sanchez always carrying a nine millimeter so the evidence that there was a night will get in the car when mr sanchez was arrested tended to bolster the credibility of those witnesses which was very critical in this case and here's why they are st where resisted out their testimony and in addition th who'd like the widow who survived that she describes someone that didn't even look like mr sanchez when she was st asked to describe him so that she didn't get out of a lineup she didn't identify then tell she had seen him on the news so this is a real question whether or not any of this eyewitness testimony is accurate or reliable one thing we don't know from the record the records out but it was just nine millimeter was was a critical piece of evidence because it bolstered all these other witnesses testimony that sanchez always carried a nine millimeter and their testimony was absolutely credible failing to move to suppress i think they also said that mr sanchez had showed it would have the most would have been granted but that it was granted in the nd trial so i don't know how else you would establish that it probably would have been granted or that there is any better way of establishing that that court of appeals said it wasn't prejudicial when clearly mr sanchez his own counsel knew it was going to be very beneficial and made great efforts to keep it out under you would you agree that as to the st argument you raised concerning the holding of the trial in jail house courtroom that that is not an issue that turns on their disregard having the state court trial transcripts before  in jail clothing we don't know exactly what the jurors had to do to get into this courtroom is there a big sign to say you're going into the jail maybe probably i don't know but if you know you're inside the jail as a juror and you're having a trial conducted inside the jail i don't see how you conclude anything other than the court believes this guy is so dangerous they can't even let him out of jail for his trial which is or what you can do to maybe reduce the prejudice depends a lot on the specific facts which i don't think we have a lot of here but i guess my question was lord just of the narrow point that you started with just that i think you're right and our decision as to be that this record does have an obligation to make an independent review of the state court records at least those that are relevant to resolving the legal issues and i guess i don't really see why having the state court trial transcript in front of the district court would have made any difference at all making the decision right because we're just doing we're doing a two thousand two hundred and fifty four do you want to alice's as to whether clearly established supreme court case law you know shows that you can't honor there is not been shown the error by the district court and even if there was shown an error by the district court in not having a complete state court record it's a harmless error that does not require reversal and there's a couple reasons for that st i would point out that responding complied with rule five who you indicated the transcripts were available mr sanchez then who was prone to say never requested the district court to the dryer  nd is if you look at the actual claims they do not require the trial transcript though mr wall started with the rd claim which involved the arraignment in the st appearance in those transcripts actually were or they were attached  transcript in your view the the decision by the state court mr sanchez does not show that that state court decision was unreasonable it's not enough that it might be erroneous findings of fact or even a clearly erroneous in front of the fact that has to is there some reference in the record to the witness stating that the picture she saw of the petitioner was taken at a convenience thread a convenience store counter or something like your honor i can't i don't recall whether later produced it when she later said she identified him she said that it was from the news report and what the state court said was there was no indication that she said that that was from the arraignment there's no there's no  record that she said i identified him for photos of the rain and what the state court recently deter and was there's been an allegation that there was a scolding at the arraignment because that but she  extensively covered by the media it could have been a booking photo it could have been a surveillance photo it could have been video of him later in the trial because the media build the case for extensive parts of the pretrial proceedings as well so there's simply nothing in the record that shows that the presence of media actually did actually affected the the victim's identification moreover the st recently determined that she was in her identification as tentatively challenge the trial through cross examination and through the presentation of a defense expert on this identification and her testimony really wasn't the key it was the testimony importantly the finding of the forty five dollars caliber handgun which forensics evidence linked to the murder said this was the gun if you know that the victims and that was found in mr sanchez that sounds that's the evidence that was material to the  trial so the state court recently to term it in that the alleged filming of the arraignment did not affect the outcome of the trial and therefore there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would be different if counsel was present in his counsel had an objection as what about me issue related to the nine millimeter because that does seem like least in terms of i would analyze that issue does seem like you need the actual trial transcript to make a and your argument as i read it is well perhaps it was strategic and that seems to me to be quite a stretch to say that the counsel would have the emotion in his back pocket and not put it out in a jury trial and then when he did a lesser included frya he pulls it out and made them at that point but it's hard to see how it would have been strategic and why it wouldn't have been in effect in the council and that may lead you right at the prejudice  said was that it that it doesn't really matter that the court that the judge denied the motion improperly and it doesn't really matter regarding the time because there was other evidence regarding the nine millimeter so we're talking about the fire alarm itself well the court of appeals was saying there was there were several witnesses who testified that mr sanchez regularly had a nine millimeter this tremendous testified that he had the nine millimeter the night of the murders and other witnesses linked mr sanchez to the nine millimeter so the fact of the firearm and self even if that had been excluded the other evidence would have come in because that was not the fruit of the poison tree of the unlawful arrest but counsel my my question to you is don't we have doesn't it just short have to have the state or trial transcript in front of it to make its own independent determination as to whether the state court's decision was reasonable or not how can you make that independent call if you don't have the underlying material before you your honor they they can do that because it's just there has not come forward with any acts showing that the state court decision was was i don't think that's what we said in as being i think we said in nesby that the court toyo side from anything the petitioner does the court itself has its own you dependent obligation to review to obtain and review the relevant portions of the state court record and basically they still haven't shown prejudice because the state court's decision was that there was again this was not the murder weapon this was a nine millimeter the just happened to be found with the addition when he was arrested the other evidence and i don't think mr sanchez can seriously dispute that it was a forty five caliber handgun that was used to move the murder and that it was found in his house i don't think you can dispute that mr mendez actually testified against him and that mr roscoe testified against him and th that it is based on the lack of a supreme court case or really doesn't matter what the facts are there is no supreme court case that really that held that conducting a trial in the courthouse inside a jail building renders the trial u on your honor it was based on her original inability to correctly identify mr sanchez she gave a description that it matched him and then when she was originally placed on a photo lineup that  had is photo in there she didn't identify him that was when she was at the hospital then when she was later able to identify him and she said it was due to news reports and then their defense expert testified both in the motion to suppress her identification and later at trial to the jury their expert testified about how this identification can occur when people are trying to identify somebody during a violent crime and the point is that the state is that her testimony really wasn't that compelling factors in this case it was a factor but it was more mr mendus his testimony mr roscoe's test money the fact that the murder weapon itself which forensics tied to the would point if this court believes that there was an error committed by the just reporting not obtaining the records and requires which requires a reman it should only be a limited remit on the one claim th intentionally identified and that would be the end effect of assistance of counsel in the timing of the motion to suppress because the the st claim regarding the courtroom is not based on the holy ones from court and the rd claim there is actually the trial transcripts from the raymond's so those claims don't need further development but we believe that all the claims are properly dismissed again the timing didn't matter because the judge denied the motion either way and so raised at the beginning of the trial or at the beginning of the bench trial it was that didn't matter the judge would have denied it in the air would have been the judge denying it not the timing who had the most  testimony about the forty five millimeter forty five him god i tend to agree with that but we don't know it's very difficult in hindsight to judge what a jury might think is critical evidence of the case or what is a piece of other witnesses and anything that would tend to bolster the credibility of those witnesses could have been a deciding factor in this case remember even though mr sanchez admitted him at the time and all the testimony was about the nine millimeter was that he carried the nine millimeter with him everywhere and i think that could have been a very critical piece of evidence for the jury