i mean your lawyer you you you you researched the law and presumably didn't do something like that you have some authority you have some case some rule something that says i could not go forward and take the obvious and logical necessary st and you know you're going with the saying again and again but i don't think you realize that i mean does this make any difference the fact that you have the reasons months before six weeks before you know of on the previous occasion and that's pretty telling that's pretty telling evidence that this is not a situation where somebody said oh yeah that's the guy this is somebody who says in real life somewhat curious thing they affirmed findings of fact judge but i don't have any indication at all and it seems actually quite fearful the language that they actually have a look at themselves and i'm wondering if that is the carrier have perhaps they don't know they don't need to know because somewhat similar to the circumstances here in a federal court why don't they need to know because on direct appeal in state course it's the burden of the appellant to produce a record that demonstrate it's been a long time i think it's in twenty one tell third states a general proposition but again i'm not saying that the stake or couldn't have done it but i do think that if the if the record is not if the exhibits are not before the state court and since the appellant does have the burden of pro of what the state court said last well it's kind of a loaded question because if it's ok you yes no i choose not to answer you've got those three choices well it's not possible to conduct reveal of the this of the superior courts find these regarding the six pack and the lineup without actually looking at the six no i disagree you think it is possible it that it can do but i think that's what the supreme court manderson's what i said your honor is that i agree that an appellate court without looking at the photographs cannot say that the trial judge that the photographs were exactly what the trial judge said but it's not not impossible and i've never said it wasn't anything like what the congress no no because i think this is no judge other than the superior court judge has ever looked at this at this evidence that's right and and maybe we can fast forward supposing that's right supposing what your honor says is true supposing that although i don't believe that's what the state court said supposing this a court said in effect we looked at the exhibits we find the evidence supports them and supposing that that's objectively an unreasonable  determination of the facts i don't think would be an objectively unreasonable application supreme court logs i don't think there's a supreme court law that sets out rules repeller review for the states but let's say we get past twenty to fifty forty different standards we're still in federal court and we're still on appeal with a claim that the photographs were unreliable or they allege were unreliable determination and we're still in the same cul de sac because we don't have the photographs  to an unreliable identification under the due process clause now the claim is that the appellate review afforded by the state of california was insufficient that's a different claim has never been presented to the state courts it's never been exhausted and it's too late to change the claim now we're still with the same basic claim which is the reliability of the testimony the identification testimony regardless of whether or not the state court would have seen photographs prove the factual basis of their claim that would mean that they would have to come into federal court and for the very same reasons your honor has are checked related they would have to show the federal judge the photographs that wasn't done and now run appeal and there's nothing in the record  allows i think the court to find that there was an arab well so the result is going to be the same regardless of whether or not there's a criticism of how the state court of appeal handled the handle the case