deadly weapon in ruling that mr sampson had failed to show cause and present than dan a claim the district court in essence created a distinction where there was no difference  recognized that the nevada courts had each rule that mr sampson demonstrated cause for the untimely filing of his claim challenging mr walters inculpatory statement however even though it recognized that cause existed on that claim they have failed to recognize that the constitutional issue the material later they issued a second opinion but it's important to remember what they did and what they didn't do and that second opinion in the first opinion the nevada supreme court ruled the arrest unlawful and then held that illegal arrest asked however with respect to the inculpatory statements made by mr walters the nevada supreme court considered in light of new york versus harris that mr walters had made those statements some distance from the arresting location and therefore under that rule they were admissible but the reason as i understood it for finding cards the first time was that they wanted  was exactly which you pointed out that it would be unfair to treat mr walters and mr sampson differently but secondly and equally importantly the trial judge recognized that the unlawful arrest affected mr cause to justify the untimely filing the nevada supreme court three years later agreed as well that walters one was sufficient cause to justify the untimely filing the issue really comes down your honour's to whether or not the constitutional violation is the admission into evidence of mr walters statements or whether the constitutional violation is really the unlawful arrest and the evidence obtained as a byproduct of that a lawful arrest clearly the nevada supreme court and walters one and in walters to hell that they are arrest was unlawful unlawful and also held in walthers one  that the bought the product of that unlawful arrest should be suppressed and once that unlawful arrest becomes the basis upon which the const the cause exists and the nevada trial judge repeatedly conviction because of the arrest and he also noted the as a result of that unlawful arrest police had unlawfully searched in the tainted evidence and discussing mr sampson not in cope with three statements made by mr walters when he was addressing mr sampson's case the district court consistently discussed the unlawful arrest in terms of the physical evidence judge disagreed with the district attorney and specifically refer the district attorney to the arrest the seizure of physical evidence and the fact that those pieces of evidence been cultivated mr sampson independent from mr walters in fact the district court judge went so far as to specifically include that claim as part of mr sampson's petition for hay vs relief and in doing so he ruled the cause existed for mr sampson's hay vs petition and its untimely filing he then ruled on the merits that the seizure of the boots in bandanna as well as consider the case also found that cause existed and so did the nevada supreme court and they all found cause existed to justify the untimely filing of mr walters one however it had dressed only the claim relating to the walter statements it made no mention at all of the boots in vandana never resolve the issue even petition at least in part on that issue the issue was never there after addressed either by the second about a trial judge or the nevada supreme court and indeed it's also important to remember the nevada supreme court on a field from conviction really based in part on the seizure of those boots and that van down absolutely no evidence in this case tying mr sampson to the murder we have circumstantial evidence that he was outside at the time the murder took place we also have no evidence that there were two other people outside at the time the murder took place with no ability to distinguish which of the two or three other people who are out there actually committed the crime second and so that there's no trace to place mr sampson outside at the time that mr ukridge was killed he had typed mr ukridge head typo blood mr sampson had type of blood and the district attorney argued that the fact that mr sampson had boots on his blood and the fact that a potentially unqualified detective testified that the blood on the boots was in the form of a spray or some other pattern indicative of a murder demonstrated that mr sampson had to be if not the killer at least in close proximity to the murder the bandanna was  cooperate the testimony of the victim's wife she after discovering her husband on the ground testifies that she ran outside and confronted mr sampson and that mr sampson was on his used that bandanna to show that in fact this is this is you had seen mr sampson there after the altercation that they had that mr sampson admitted at that time that there had been a fight that he had been wounded as a result of that fight and then lashed back  have abandoned any challenge regarding grounds two three and five relating to whether or not they are proper properly procedurally defaulters and that the united states district court found them to be so regarding grounds for the as far as the nevada state courts are concerned why they address the issue they felt that there was a cause you have the analysis from the judge about what's good for the goose is good for the gander and one tree in the same and so the cost for the state the stay court proceedings after ours were were concerned at the federal level and whether or not we're going to find a procedural default or not is whether or not the state court actually heard the claim  now now one thing i would like to point out just briefly on the initial trial for judge's findings also is that we need to remember that his order was vacated there was an order of  claim why there might be a perception that they didn't address the duke and then down and that is because if you look at how that claim was a race and how that came about and this goes back to my boss an argument that i made a numerals and all and laid them out omfg in his supplemental petition he had a appointed counselor come in one to two more claims she had been did a motion to and that's not being appealed they did and the only reason why i was bringing up the issue was to explain why maybe the nevada supreme court was an ass clear and maybe there isn't something about boots and bandanas in there and and the props of the think it's still pretty easily defaulted at this point in time there is no adequate state court remedy that this is an exhausted well we're going to tell him to go back and we've already done that before we call me go back and they presented the claim and a false within the language of the the nevada supreme court and also the district court that to all other claims are time bar also never addressed the person van down and that the only court that did in fact address the boots in vandana was the original nevada trial court in the original post conviction proceedings in one thousand nine hundred which specifically discuss which is page three of the not a supreme court's there's nothing on the last paragraph ok i thought it was in the foot no but it's the last paragraph it says after they review the record they conclude the poem is not entitled to griefs i mean it's a convention petition if you look at the transcripts of the april tenth april twelfth and the may seventeenth hearing in that may seventeenth hearing he expressed lease states that he is considering mr sampson claim is still part of what was presented to the district court and that subsequent hearing again could have been presented more clearly but mr sampson's attorney in that hearing that excerpt of record three fifty one doesn't form this new job that judge christianson granted relief in the first post conviction proceeding based on the statements as well as some of the evidence that was rounded up at the residence that's pretty fast so it's there well it's then except for when we go through the nevada supreme court in the united states supreme court's rules that didn't rule on it and then you steal the line appear on live and if so merrily dismissed without briefing an oral argument and in neither case do you have any discussion of the boots in just like the nevada supreme court did it continues to specifically addressed each issue of intent it was time barred and it does not and then if either boots in vandana instead of doing it in serialist form it did it in paragraph by paragraph seven and then you go all the way through to page excerpts of record three eighty one  this is this is these are the findings of fact in conclusions of law in the second post conviction proceeding after reading man from the supreme court next move on page three hundred three seventy three seventy nine and consequently it has never even though raised with the district court and even though presented to the district court for resolution it was never resolved by the second district court judge the first district court judge d vacated it comes back to the second district court judge for reconsideration in light of walters to the second that is district court judge simply does not address it or it goes up to the position that when you read that paragraph in connection with the other paragraphs in the findings of fact in conclusions of law the all other claims that are time bart are those claims that he spells out and also if you want the same claims which are spelled out by the nevada supreme court it's order dismissing the appeal so it's simply even though it's presented to the district court and even though the state recognizes it exhausted in the district court ruled it was exhausted it's never decided by the nevada state court system it's just the method are also was abandoned on the second hearing before the second hearing because it wouldn't be exhausted