my name's michael but on i represent michael rockwell i will attempt probably unsuccessfully to hold a couple of minutes for to reply  i'm the first to admit that this is sort of a weird improbable sort of situation at least it seems to me that the federal rules of the state and state rules in the courts all suggest as well as the fifth amendment due process also suggests that the appearance of impropriety on the part of a sitting judge is something really important and something that should d simply because simply because the newspaper accounts were so pervasive and so direct and the fact that the judge himself was interviewed and  that's in the exhibits that are part of the record of part of my record this record at least and the fact that the people have lost potentially at least one of the star witnesses that as well through any low trial counsel at the time recollection that this particular judge did make very denigrating comments which were as a result of think it was not an issue that i raised initially in my opening brief that was something that was raised almost tangentially on by by ok absolutely so i interpret it her saying you know the case was reassign he he did not believe that it would manifest itself in such a way in the way that it did and it manifested itself by the comments made outside the presence of the bad thing it was something you didn't want to do because it affected if there was a degree of collegiality and less it was really something awful he just didn't do it because he didn't want to affect you know anything about and you know almost thirty years of practice almost thirty years of practice i have paper an affidavit of one judge and i do that because i believe in the integrity of the system i've always believed in the integrity of the system now of the point you're not saying that how do you behave decently in the in the trial that there would have been anything wrong because there was no reason to think that this act was sufficient to require transcript and put in judge smith and so the judge milian handed the transcript to fifteen experienced criminal defense lawyers in your community they would have come to the same conclusion in fact that's  that the defendant did nothing to challenge this issue for twelve years he was convicted and the first time he did anything to challenge the judge's impartiality was in his state which was twelve years later in the state that we have to worry about whether there should be a hearing because counsel has agreed that all it would be at the hearing would be the affidavit which is already in the record so i don't think there's a question about having any hearing but i think your defense attorney looks like he's manipulating the evidence and trying to pull a fast one on the judge judge looks like he fell for the judge and looks like he made an honest mistake that's what that's about yes i couldn't tell from the record to judge perform this and the defense attorney all agreed that this witness's testimony was not really significant it looks to me like the most she could have testified to was that the defendant told her that he was wanted for murder in california nesting by that time so even if the marriage hadn't happened she couldn't be found so the bottom line was she was not going to be called one way or another and the actual articles if you read those two articles they're really general i think again that's relatively mild in the court ok i feel confident that the court can handle whatever we may dish out but there is a difference between a state court judge you're asked to stand for some kind of election and those of us who course of the trial it was made we don't know if it was made after the jury in fact that on him guilty it's an extremely late allegation again made many many years later and there's no evidence that the defense a