mandate from the united states supreme court specifically for reconsideration in light williams and the question before this court today in my opinion at least is was the state courts interpretation of williams and reasonable and need you don't challenge the testimony from the beginning that the challenge is spent to rand's testimony to the contents of a report that we could not cross examine the person that the analysts that wrote the report from the very beginning sanchez our california supreme court decided that there was no relying on williams relying on the the five justices in millions that agreed on one point at least that there was no difference between basis of an incident may it please the court deputy attorney general mary sanchez on behalf of respondent petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because the california court of appeals decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly a stablished federal law as determined by the united states supreme court opposing counsel cites a recent decision by the california supreme court people vs sanchez but that decision can have no application here under the d p a it is the holdings of the united states supreme court that determine whether the decision of the california court of appeal was reasonable or not here in the last bar of a decision bar before the california court of appeal discussed williams versus illinois a deeply divided decision where the united states supreme court held that out of court statements that are related by the expert solely for the purpose of explaining the assumptions on which that opinion rests are not offer for the truth and thus fall outside the scope of the confrontation clause now the california court of appeal found that the admission of the d n a report itself violated the confrontation clause but it found that it was harmless error because dr reynolds herself offered her own independent testimony and how did she do the testimony that report itself that was prepared and she based her independent expert opinion on those materials the salient point here is that there is no united states supreme court precedent that would have found that to be error under the confrontation clause all we have like i said is the very deeply fractured williams opinion that found that the admission of  a report itself was erroneous under the confrontation clause but that the expert the plurality found that an expert could base his or her opinions on those out of court statements so the issue here was the search judges report a recommendation that was adopted by the district court judge commenting in the california court of appeals had indicated that the focus of the arguments were not on the d n a results but on the contamination issue and reynolds actually testified was helpful i think to the defense on that issue and that the focus of the arguments was not on the emission of the d n a report itself i think the magistrate's report  that correct because there are page after page of cross examination of the l a p d analyst fellow by the name of master koval who testified at length regarding any possible contamination issue there was also a great deal of testimony that form of cross examination of dr reynolds regarding the possibility of contamination of the control shaft and she finally admitted yes it was possible that it exactly that's exactly correct because i'm not sure why was reynolds testimony an adequate substitute for and again i don't remember the name of the original technician but if we were if the defendant wanted to try to expose either incompetence or negligence in some fashion by the person who did the original analysis i mean i looked at the i don't i don't i don't know if we have the notes that reynolds was looking at but i look at the little report and i mean that doesn't disclose enough information for the defense to be able to cross examine reynolds on the you know how good of a job the original person did right i think ultimately there was a very effective cross examination because it came out that ms warren did not wash their hair prior to performing the d n a extraction procedure that was very thoroughly gone into by defense that carries weight behind no i know about i'm talking about the actual results that are recorded on the report and i'm i'm no d n a expert so if you're able to educate me that's great but all bliss is just a series of numbers and letters that's that then says oh well if i compare this to that it's a match that's not right how do we know that the original letter and number record on the report is correct if you don't have the person who did the original testing there to cross examine and that's i guess what i'm trouble that would have the same genetic markers at those six positions  population and for the african american population the one in six million was the low number there so that's why i bring that that up i think what's important here is we have to look at that clearly established united states supreme court precedent which allows you can you have actually answer the question of the pows and that's why it's always a danger when you veer off to say i'll get to that question later i'm looking at the report and so i don't know i'm not an expert some hoping that you can help  interpret this but i look at the you know the line across the top and then it just says there's just a number twenty two comma twenty three and ok well i can look at that i don't need to be the expert i can look at that and see that oh well that corresponds to the same numbers that mr barber has for for that same i guess it's a particular marker on the d n a so what i'm saying is fine reynolds comes in and says i'm an expert and i'm telling you i look at this thing and there's a match here but you need to know that the original number recorded for the sample that's called hairs from item number five is actually correct and so i'm wondering how was defense counsel supposed to  expose any errors in recording the original numbers by cross examining reynolds who didn't actually conduct the tests she just was assuming that those numbers were correct right well she was and i think what defense counsel did here was a very fine job of showing that the possibility of contamination which occurred on the hair shaft and she could not downplay or dispute the possibility of the  sample hair so i think that was an important point that was brought out for the jury and again if you're looking at the results i'm looking at this test here itself or it says here video of most of the possible know you're right but here we are under the a d p a looking at what's reasonable and looking at clearly established u s supreme court precedent there was no reasonable determination by the california court of appeal based on williams williams but in williams tell me in from misremembering the case i thought what william said is that let's just take our example here that sure  person like reynolds can come in and give the or her own independent expert opinion that for example the d n a marker at this particular place is a match for you know the sample in question but can only do that on the by assuming for the sake of her testimony that that original data is accurate and what the prosecution would need to do is bring in someone else to actually lay a foundation to say that no that that the independent the expert gave an independent opinion on actually was accurate and it seems to me that's what i guess life seems like it's lacking here that the prosecution never brought in somebody to show that the original data recorded on the report actually was accurate am i getting that wrong i think so i think what the plurality found and again it was that the expert assumes but does not know to be true that these numbers are correct but there's no requirement that the prosecution then bring in the analyst now yeah ok well so what remind me then what was what happened in williams because i thought the prosecution did bring in somebody  basically show that the facts that the expert was assuming to be true actually work true sure is that and in williams it was a d n a rape case and there was  expert from the illinois state police who had a d n a report from cellmark purporting to show some results and then he had his own report and so he was assuming the truth of the cellmark report the plurality said that that did not violate the sixth amendment confrontation clause and they had their  why it's very hard to really draw a conclusion from williams that it can apply beyond the confines of the williams decision itself so what we're what we're dealing with here was the reasonable ness of the california court of appeals harmlessness determination based on at that time williams which as i said is a deeply fractured opinion and does not offer clearly establish other circumstantial evidence and and concluded reasonably that there could not be no fair minded juror no fair minded jurist would disagree with their harmlessness determination the fact that there is no difference that a jury at least can't can't make that distinction maybe a judge can i just want to say when we're doing that d n a is a wonderful thing it frees the ensign to convict the guilty but it's only as good as the weakest links in the chain in this in this particular case we have some many weak links that it needed to be subjected to cross examination of the person that actually did did the work for honesty for  to they all agreed that basis evidence was not was this was not something that could just be put before a jury and not accepted as true so that this distinction  you know it's one of those things i mean i understand the point of view that this is a very difficult case because it's such a horrible crime but that's courage i do want to question is it your position that dr ron paul's opinion about the one in six million violated the confrontation clause because dr ronn owens was relying on the