on judges finding that that federal constitutional claims had not been exhausted in the state courts and the background issue here really is jury misconduct in state court leading to his conviction for sexual assault and there's a federal constitutional framework here in the background mr titus this case which provides the basis for district court jurisdiction  which is that there was a determination by the alaska supreme court that the injection of of preexisting knowledge about a case here about a defendant can constitute that kind of extrinsic prejudicial information used to be able to raise it absolutely true all we have is we have two rounds of appellate proceedings the first when i talk about the federal constitutional framework here i'm talking about the discussion and the alaska supreme court confrontation and it specifically references both state and federal case law on the scouts in those rights and it's my argument judge fletcher that that being the constitutional framework was that there was a remain and to the trial for in the trial court the trial court was to determine the facts as to whether in fact such knowledge had been injected that's essentially what was presented to the identified federal constitutional framework and and principle it's his argument that there was an unreasonable determination of the facts and that's the argument for federal jurisdiction here just quite simpl had a case that i wrote i must say that was i think it was called baldwin v resist when we wrote our opinion and the supreme court granted sort of the reverse of that  but you know that they just said something that sounded logical wasn't enough the federal issue had to be very explicitly presented in the papers to the state supreme court  familiar with that litigation judge told and and i guess my response how i distinguish that is is that here you have the alaska supreme court actually defining what the constitutional basis was for that decision it may not have been argued it may not have been briefed by the parties but it was the premise for the alaska supreme court's decision that session in cray had to be allowed if in fact there and if such a determination has to be allowed and so i might my even though th appeals was strictly related to the determination of fact and that's that is my argument then pretty much the entirety of it for why it is that we do already have a federal constitutional my name is ken rosenstein and represent the elite mr turnbull and the state of alaska writing about the difficulty of asserting a constitutional claim a federal constitutional claim judge kleinfeld observed last alaska department of education department of corrections brief in the case is not like writing a poem where the message may be conveyed entirely through illusion and connotations a defen six zero six b and since that rule is based on federal evidence rule six of six be they naturally look at the federal court interpretations of the federal rule and when the alaska supreme court was referring to federal constitutional rights they were simply explaining the burden of exhausting that a federal constitutional claim or the burden of raising i think a constitutional claim a state court is is not onerous and that mr titus has failed to satisfy this this small burden is revealed in his petition for hearings to the filed in the alaska supreme court following the remain and where he claimed only that the trial court's factual determinations were clearly erroneous somewhere i and i'm not sure i i i don't know if the limitations has have run out on his ability to file a state post conviction relief the state are you asking about the state here well educate the state hideous procedure in alaska is really nonexistent i believe that there's a statute or court rule or decision that says that any any action filed under the rule are authorized in the state have the is to be treated as a state post conviction relief application under our criminal rule thirty you may deem it up somewhat more limited because you can't in a post conviction relief action raise a claim that could have been asserted in direct appeal right so it means in a federal hate us action you just can read any any federal constitutional claim can be raised whether or not it was raised in the state  honor i know that mr titus would like me to say why it something about why it is he should be permitted to argue in federal district court as to the unreasonable intoxicated but in deliberations this is a quote from the judge judge's initial finding and deliberations the jury was exposed to information from members of the jury that mr titus was drinking during the time of the alleged rape and that he was a is i think how they redefine the argument wasn't that it was in and basically unreasonable they talked about the constitutional imperative in reaching their decision and asked that is the premise for our exhaustion argument thank