automatically a lot of thirty minutes per side but it seems to the panel that many of the issues have already been covered earlier so that we're going to suggest that you try to stick to twenty minutes  today obviously you were notified if there was going to be thirty and if you are totally relying on that well that's understood but i think we can get to the issues and have a good discussion on a twenty minute  another murder and drug manufacturing and drug dealing and i quote for any purpose whatsoever including but not limited to his character traits of this character or his conduct on  karr so and in fact the evidence shows that mr snow had a loving relationship with the people who had died none of this was considered by the california supreme court and in their decision to say that there was the strength nothing in the california supreme court this it shows that they even considered the fact that outrageous instruction would have had any impact on the jury they never took any time to examine how an jury was allowed to consider another murder in determining whether mr are so i was responsible for the for the murder out for which he was on trial it would obviously have had an impact on how the jury determined whether mr grasso was guilty and in fact it definitely there is no question that the jury without any instructions to tell them otherwise would have consider that for an unreasonable purpose in the in this case in fact it's not just the crime scene evidence it definitely lifted the burden on the prosecutor in this case and one of the things i'd like to talk about briefly i reliable people in the world however to the jury they certainly would have seemed to be more reliable because they were not as related to the main actors in the drug conspiracy and so when you look at the influence of the other murder on the jury you would find that there were these people who talked to that significant aspects of the rambo murder who were not saying groups that were the witnesses for the murder for which m none of this was commented a quiet upon in any way by the california supreme court and i would suggest that that was an unreasonable application of the facts to the law in this to reasonably fulfill their duty to take into account chapman and that they never looked at the impact on the jury in their determination of whether or not chapman believe that there is that this court should find that mr garstang so was prejudiced by this this outraged instruction that in fact there is no reason under eight d p a to reverse the relief that was granted on its instruction the first time around and that we would hope that this court would reverse due process violation so it seems to me that the only issue before the court is whether or not the california supreme court was correct when they found no prejudice and this court has already looked at that issue i mean there are no question time is that the law has been that the california that the united states supreme court has made it's very clear that on the facts of our case which is never the facts have never been disputed by the attorney general at any point on the facts of our case given the recent supreme court decisions in williams and wiggins that based on those fa tactical decisions cannot stand because they would have to have been made on some investigation which is which is clear under the health under the united states supreme court must be based on a reasonable resulted in a decision that involved an unreasonable application of united states supreme court authority that is our position right now  chapman involves a reasonable application of existing united states supreme court authority maybe i'm a little confused here but you did say as i recall in fact i think we mentioned in the opinion that may your honor what i meant to say and if i didn't say this i apologize what i meant to say is if both prongs of the deficient representation was found and prejudice then it could be remanded that this is in fact an e d p a case and the state court is entitle the government's we look back to when petitioner filed his petition on ineffective assistance of counsel in the california supreme court in his petition there that the california supreme court examined the claims assume for purposes of argument that each of the claims had merit and determined that there was no right here so there is no decision there to defer to and i think we also in our first opinion assume that we can continue to assume there's a due process violation so the question as  to an ineffective assistance of counsel argument they moved directly without addressing the deficient nature of the claim they moved directly to the prejudiced prong in our position is that that well maybe that is what you're trying to kind of argue and i'm if you aren't i'm having a hard time arguing even though of finding a harmless noticed might be error words that if we independently reviewed the record and the law and we conclude that well this is not harmless under brac it's still possible under that same set of circumstances to come to the conclusion that the supreme court's the california supreme court's conclusion that the error error was harmless under catman was not unreasonable correct t i think our position as consistently been that even under bracket was harmless instruction ok ok go ahead granting this claim under the propensity instruction would create a new rule on which the petitioner cannot be granted relief there's no holding from the united states supreme court to prohibit jury instructions of this nature worth that is not a change in the state's position and in terms of the california supreme court's decision in this case with regard to this instructional issue i think it really doesn't matter whether or not the california supreme court did reach the issue or didn't reach the issue i mean it seems to me if the california supreme court did find that it was your due process violation then and we respect time around it's something that you really look at and you find to be the kind of outrageous violation that you know when you look at it is going to have a historical precedent and so i don't really think it matters wrecked but at the same time that the california supreme court conclusion that there is no chapman error are could be argument because of the way the california supreme court analyzed the facts in this case it was an unreasonable application because they failed over and over again to take into consideration the types of things that they needed to take into consideration in order to have a reasonable application under chapman and in particular the things that they took that they failed to take into consideration and in terms of its effect on the jury in this case is a way a state court does things i suppose in theory it is possible but i don't think it's