those of the jury in the california court of appeal the district court misapplied jackson versus virginia by taking each piece of circumstantial evidence by itself and finding no reasonable inference of guilt from each piece alone rather than examining the entire record and taking reasonable in in order to commit crimes in the future that's sufficient and that's what it was there doesn't have to be a particular crime they don't have to say oh we're going to do this to commit a particular murder in the future for example i've discovered this protect the territory to commit crime s obviously the victim was not a threat to the territory so i would respectfully disagree your honor the victim because he didn't think knowledge or didn't know they were well he didn't merely not acknowledge that he he  was he was disrespectful to the the gang member the petitioner in this case that if you don't know me don't be talking to me after that the victim said whatever and walked away and the jury could reason with  disrespectful given that this was in the heart of gang territory where other gang related robberies that were turf oriented occurred like at the party argument but i don't understand how that helps you helps the gang promote further robberies well your honor and i mean if this were a different gang member coming in from a different crew sang being disrespectful of the ideas i'm thinking but this was simply an unknowing victim the walked in and  walking in a stranger then initiated the encounter with petitioner that something like how do you do or nodded towards him after which kids were said you know me don't be talking to me he obviously considered that the evidence showed he obviously considered that to be a threat then followed that up with where are you from after which the victim again just sort of walked away so and then and then the petitioner said after all that if you want to well you're one of the victims the police officer at trial gave testimony about the victim's inconsistent statements earlier in the statement that he believed that this was a i think it was working he said it was a gun and used in a fight is one of two types new said it was a silver but when he went to testify he did not say that he said he couldn't tell what it was and then the police officer came in his head his prior statement i assume that was for there has to be some sort of specific intent to further some for the crimes and other crimes of the gang and i think what his tracks me is and maybe you could address this the most difficult point for your client is his confrontation that is it strikes me as not being a simple robbery if you identify yourself and identify your gang usually robbers don't want to be known by their victims say they would rather get away and not because in this instance the robbery or they have the money and the bicycle was attended to by him and then a crime self by his gang moniker and also by the name of the gang does not strike you as being not a simple robbery of indicate this is more than a simple robbery well actually i don't know i don't believe that actually actually knew that the individual wasn't from the area i think that came out later on but not at the time the robbery i would was a spontaneous occurrence that believe it was not planned there was there does not appear to be any evidence for it but it seemed to be just an immature adolescent spontaneous reaction to a situation and that was the argument situation had nothing to do with the gang and in would agree if in fact there had to do something else with other types of situations for example i'd like to let the courts fade early if it was a rival gang member or if there was some other sort of situation however i think with it goes a little further than that it goes to whether a rational trier of fact based on the evidence presented could be could reach that the on reasonable doubt however i don't think their expert and that's why they have experts in there for gangs and for other situations to explain these psychology in gang behavior and certain reasons why they do certain things that the expert was lacking and i think that's one of the biggest killers in this case is that the expert didn't put together robberies and then i get  one reasonable inference here is that the term protection had a nexus was robbery because they would try to intimidate people into making turning over money making the robberies easier and that's one plausible i suppose the district court we have to find the district court was correct on its assessment of what the state court did both the trial court the court of appeal what's your burden to demonstrate as far as tipping over a state factual finding what do finder no rational fact finder would find a way this particular fact finder to correct actions that they wouldn't find but that they would find beyond a reasonable doubt i think that's the key it interaction points that out that it's not it's not whether one argument in the other it's whether or not a rational trier of fact can find that those elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt and i don't know why why you say it's not rational that's that's a pretty high burden why you say it's not rational well because based upon the evidence presented and i know it's in the briefings there's a bunch of other assumptions and a bunch of other things brought out but but if you think that the evidence presented that in fact and i agree with robbery they committed a robbery in an area where other robberies by gang members had been committed however there was no connection there's no nexus to the specific intent to further the crimes of other members of the respond and say well the expert testimony failed in that particular part by showing they're protecting their turf but that's a part of the what the games do is they protect their turf from this robbery had to do with that was the response to the well i don't think that this is this this particular robbery was in any way to protecting their turf it's not like they were hanging out here and anybody who comes into the area as unguardedly the they were kind of that was their area this guy comes into the area they attack them it's not one of those situations had the alleged victim in this case had just gone in the store and not said anything to mr garcia that would have been a confrontation and therefore there would have been a robbery it wasn't there there isn't anything very just it was a spontaneous situation of the trial judge that spontaneous adolescent immature response to this argument it was an argument between mr daschle and the individual had nothing to do with gangs or anything that nature and i  believe that the trial court in spain the gang has believed that as well and he sat there and listened to all the testimony clear i don't know if there's a case of goes quite this far that's when somebody or you certainly can enhance super in switzer's a nexus between that and other criminal activity which you can enhance for simple canning membership this doesn't quite fit the usual paradigm on on this enhanced one and i confess when i'm struggling with well you don't have to make a lot of logical leaps from the evidence because the experts in testify specifically about argument is with the california case it's even the stranger coming in if it's related to protecting turf or asserting themselves over their tour that's california cases say that's sufficient well i'm going with another gang case