position is that wilson's case is different in a way that makes it appropriate for us to say even though this wasn't ruled on by the state court there's enough of an indication of what the court was going to do you can go ahead and make a ruling right now what is it that makes this case so different from williams and we should instead of sending it here this is key first of all there were different charges against all the defendants as i'm sure you're aware from the previous as well as the jury being instructed very clearly not to consider certain evidence against certain defendants so it was a very precise set of jury instructions here charges that wilson's defense was that he wasn't involved at all and that there was only one witness who showed that he was involved this changes while he was a member of the gang and his credibility was briefing that this was not something that is the independent disability the service was nothing that the state court never directly ruled on the right i disagree with actually your honor i think that there is an argument to me that they have ruled on it and i this is your language from your reply brief page six quote the state courts have never specifically had the opportunity to rule on whether the evidence used to show p c away would have been admissible yes wilson had the p c away charge not been part of the piece unquote quoted at length in your home treatment are clear enough to permit us to say that this was even if not the precise issue that we're talking about now it was they commented while speaking to another issue in a way that answers this question that's current that the fear reading of what they said is this goes to murder motive this goes to conspiracy and not just a little rico exactly and i think also this court case can certainly just rule on the basis of state law itself that it also goes to identity i was an offer proof made by the prosecution that it was a miserable for those crimes at the time that that argument was made to the jury but it was not me to the other than the corrupt organizations act i believe was not made and again i'd be glad to look but i believe it wasn't me because there was no reason to make it since at the time everybody believed and the superior court had held and so this i wasn't as clear as i could have been in the briefs but we have several positions as to the remedy of course of course first is if the court agrees with us that the state courts have already ruled on this question then it's a fairly clear thing that we know that only the direct appeal when the non bashed version of the admissibility question was raised by jack mcmahon the courts held as just jordan and i were discussing earlier that it was admissible not only as to corrupt organization is but also as to the motive for the murder and so on that's the first position the second is if the court disagrees that that was a ruling on this precise question and i think we have admitted it's not the precise question was not you've just put the rabbit back in to have you here when you say connected with the conspiracy i mean that's the point isn't it that the commonwealth says it is connected with the conspiracy in the supreme court of pennsylvania and william seems to be indicating it is fairly considered part of the conspiracy so why wouldn't we take what they say williams as being equally political to coconspirator wilson as it is the coconspirator williams because