instruction that the evidence of of the girlfriend minna sheena was only offered to impeach that of her boyfriend mark elan for that limited purpose and then allowed the government to bring in that's the prosecutor to bring in for corroborating witnesses and then direct appeal what we have are certain issues that are raising why they have to do with the luminal testing and whether that was there the other one was the hearsay argument but the third one is also kind of interesting because what they argued was they were even precluded from cross examining in arguing the motive or intent of machine as to why she testified her father of allegedly was an organized crime figure and what benefits he would receive from her testimony but then we have an opinion which is a from our supreme court and no one knows basically there were reasons but on the rule for the petition where we raise confrontation for the first time we wind up with is that that he had raised but you know i'm not a bleeding heart i've been doing this thirty three years and when we talk about someone being on trial even if it wasn't something that was looking at life with out there with the possibility when we talk about the very essence of confronting your accuser very essence of that i can't imagine when he raises hearsay when kind of goes hand in glove with confrontation well you know there are a bazillion hearsay if you use in those trials all the time  because it was a set up they have the cast of characters waiting backstage if it's offered only to impeach markie why in the world do they bring in four witnesses to say and corroborate what machine follow the other if you have a pellet counsels not ineffective but waive the issue of confrontation and ineffectiveness because it wasn't racist it just doesn't work one thing has to be true then the confrontation issue becomes very weak isn't that true i don't i don't agree with that respectfully when you have as a general proposition when you have someone objecting  was no accident we have a limiting instruction from the court that this is only offered for the limited purpose of teaching maki law and then the cast of characters come in and it's argued assumption of proof this hearsay his privilege against self incrimination was removed let me say as a general proposition as lawyers when we look at and i know the prosecutor and i like him but that's not relevant one way or the other but when we look at this ca we have a prosecutor who puts on a witness who has initially no immunity and he takes the fifth and then he's given french national unity if the prosecutor was not expecting this she and and and that would be if you have a prosecutor who is very please call this witness knowing that the witness was going to testify the way he sold me for the purpose of putting in a that would be a different case from what we have here today i could not in good faith just as an officer of the court come in and accuse the prosecutor of that other than being able just to look at what the facts w hearing for the state court i understood him to say that he did see the proof in issue was looking at the page limitations and the fact that he was already far over the page limitation for his brief he made some choices respondents have admitted or there's an admission that she did present the claims in her direct appeal and we would submit that in our objections to one of the issues he had raised and that's at two fifty three to two fifty five obviously with all due respect to him to admit that to admit you're ineffective is not something i would expect lawyers to be jumping through hoops to do