violation of defendant's federal constitutional rights when the court of appeal reversed the granting of the motion for a new trial had been granted by the trial judge at the state for criminal proceeding at which to defend it was convicted of attempted examination it turned out that the screwdriver that was the weapon was still retained by the victim cross examination was deferred and put off until the victim could go home and bring the screwdriver back he did return with  else he could have asked so you have this weird drive or without the fingerprints what quest what questions would have been asked well there's two things i think that there were two things going on not only that the examination those things are prints on the screwdriver but also the defendant h been requesting that the sheriff's department that arrested him produce his clothes in court and they came to court after the cross examination was initially completed and so there was actually two areas where he could be cross examined on and one of  circumstances surrounding the crime that are inconsistent with what he's testifying in court so he's testified that the punch had stabbed him with a screwdriver a screwdriver fell into the car and he had it and it was it how can he explain the doesn't prove a falsity either we did have some relevance in proving the faulty premises but it doesn't it's not necessarily unequivocal proof that the screwdriver was not used in central park that was never presented or constructed the the witness against him and it's not only the screwdriver i mean it it doesn't actually prove i'm completely innocent that the test under townsend versus sane ninety's later you saw the account at a gas station had the police arrested him and he said account was wearing the same clothing that he was wearing wearing on the night of the crime and eventually that clothing was brought into court and it was shortly sure but it didn't come into court to last the cross examination had initially been terminated and found postpone and so that was an area where the witness could have been confronted with with additional evidence and the clothing could have been shown to him and on cross examination and there possibility that then the witness would have changed his testimony or retracted some of his claims against the into the defendant so these are our important elements of physical evidence that had come to light during that and the response was arguing that have the state court said that there were did not qualify under the state rules merely discovered because there was no showing for the couldn't of been discovered first process violation here is such that this was a one witness case there was no corroboration the witness was never confronted with the clothing it was never confronted with the knife and the new witness this hours or half created a whole new the crime occurred and attacking the credibility of the of the of the prosecution witness essentially saying that that the that the witness was a homosexual that frequently lo room resulted in conflicts between the people that he was loaning his car out in exchange for sexual favors and he also testified that the windshield on a vehicle was broken before the night of the police salt and corroboration that under the circumstances of the combination of the violation of the right to cross examine and the newly discovered evidence which undermine the credibility of prosecution witness was so great that it was unreasonable for the court of appeals to take away the granting of the e petition for review that is in the supplemental excerpts of record that was filed by the the attorney general on page one thirteen paragraph three left three paragraphs there the first paragraph talks about the newly discovered evidence of second paragraph talks about the facts of the cross examination and then the third paragraph states the claim is that the question presented is whether the court of appeals in eyestrain his right to a fair trial and to confront and cross examine the witness is in violation of six in the fourteenth amendment well i think that's that's sufficient to raise the federal federal claim in state court and then it also made the argument that it wasn't sufficient raised in the district court and as i was looking through the excerpts of record  two issues or three issues one was saying that it wasn't sufficiently a federal issue and that it was not an unreasonable application of federal law even if it was but i don't think these procedural i don't think i got your answer to the question of why when  evidence was it was a closed proceeding no no that's not the question the question was whether they could have discovered the evidence earlier they said there's no showing that the evidence it's not new evidence because it could have been discovered earlier there's no showing that it could not have been discovered earlier as required to california law but the facts at the hearing where the witness was afraid and he was a reluctant witness and when he finally came to court he would only testify if the court closed the proceedings to the doesn't constitute a sufficient showing that the evidence couldn't have been discovered earlier you want us to reverse that that's not reasonable that that's an unconstitutional fine it's an unreasonable ruling that including this strange witness who claims to have known them both for thirty years and tells his story and all you have really on the other side is you're going to get a who doesn't bother to come back when he supposed to testify records and orders and i don't see any order in my review of the record or the excerpts of record where the district court ruled that plane was not exhausted i looked in their their briefs and on page fifteen of the government's brief they're argument is that it would he were in the court the petition to the california supreme court doesn't mention any federal cases doesn't mention the constitution only talks about the california court of appeals applying the wrong