she misstated the law he used evidence for improper purposes and she improperly used prior conviction impeachment evidence the question for the court this morning is whether the state court unreasonably found that all of these errors were harmless like the misstatements of law mr hosley petitioner presented an imperfect defense of others theory based on his claim that he actually believed two things at the time of the shooting number one that his mother was in imminent danger of being killed herself or suffering great bo injury and number two that this use of force was necessary to defend against this danger the important the important point to this event is that under california law neither of these beliefs had to be reasonable he simply just had to be  objection and said that the prosecutor was correct that the reasonable this requirement was in the instruction the state court found that these misstatements of law were harmless because the trial court properly instructed on the law at the end of the case it is true that at the end of the case the trunk or gave the jury proper and structured as drugs as a murder and manslaughter but the state courts conclusion is unreasonable because as this court's well established case law sets forth much more than simply instructing properly at the trial court actually made it worse by ratifying the improper statement of the prosecutor i cited the stein case which says if the in of a case there is a conflict in this truxton's the jury cannot be presumed to follow the proper one and because  instruction during the case that was directly contrary to that this misconduct denied mr hosty a fair trial because of that subject matter of this case really boil down to mr hosley state of mind what did he actually believe was necessary at the time he was in the house taking into account all have his mental health issues and all of the history he had with his mother and based upon everything that was presented including the testimony of dr munro mr hosty had a very strong argument that given his brutal and extraordinary background he actually believed that that's five that he needed that in this way to save his mother he had a much much weaker argument that he had he had a reasonable belief based on all the facts that he needed to shoot mr johnson and that's phone call on the way to his mother's house in which his mother told him that everything was fine it was simply agenda idea they had been drinking heavily when this crowd testified that this all occurred incision or said the call never occurred and a couple other witnesses testify that they were not able to get a hold of mr hosty on the way because his phone was off the government argued in closing that the call did happen based on crowder's testimony and the defense said the call never happened saying that the decision or should be believed in  just like the st issue there was an immediate defense objection the trial court again and promptly overruled it and said to the jury it's in response to the argument go ahead again the state court found that this argument was improper but again well that's a harmless  hosley and it never should have come in with all those facts and never should have come in for that for that purpose and so so yes i have a question i mean you're right you're right this part of it misconduct was and telling the jury what it needed to do to to handle the case properly and so the reason why all these conclusions are unreasonable is because the state court just just adopted a blanket rule that if you instruct at the end of the instructions that the enter or  proper everything that happened beforehand is fine even if the trial court didn't take prompt in effect of an active action even even to as you see here the truck would actually ratified actually ratified with the prosecutor said and in doing so the law and how all evidence was to be used by the time the jury went into the jury room and the jury took britain of those correct instructions in with them as well as like to touch briefly on its defense was the defense focused on anything less than st degree murder it wasn't really focused on unreasonable self that was just one of the many options he was trying to get at and the reason we know this is because that page seven year excerpts of record where the state court recounted a summary of the peti retention or himself testified that he never intended to shoot he didn't even remember shooting and it was basically an accident the gun went off without his knowledge that was his testimony he didn't testify that he believed that he needed to shoot the victim because of some sort of altercation he didn't even realize you pull t in that context the prosecutors in the statements regarding unreasonable self defense on are that much less harmful and when a prosecutor mistakes the law and the trial court has a correct instruction on the law that is not conflict or instructions are not conflicting instructions in the meaning of the supreme court the disassociated to the disorder which can affect someone's ability to to to to recall or comprehend things out or have any and he went and said look i went there and we had the confrontation at the door and  these cases are exactly how the hell is supposed to work in terms of taking a broad proposition from the supreme court and then applying it to particular instances and so those are controlling us through this issue they're exactly on point as to what the trial court needed to do in this case and and