decides to do its own harmless error analysis i bring that to the court's attention until i had a myself however because i'd like to address the existence of the constitutional layer of course before we show that that the courts absolutely wrong and now i think i can your honor and this is a perplexing question to me because when i see the videotape i clearly see the detective mr trevino is in the middle top row and the detective is clearly tapping right there after after the witness mr curtis pitts number one he is clearly tapping on number one what i thought was number two  know that the state district court said that he did not want the state district court judge that he did not find having the resolution of the issue by the idaho supreme court is a little bit more problematic they don't talk about that specifically really shows this in this during the cross examination of the detective during the during the motion to suppress in the state court proceedings they played this portion of the see exactly what happened right he heaved i think the question was do you deny tapping in the says no i don't do i tapp and it'll be the videotape will speak for itself and that's exactly right i think th the witness mr curtis picked number one the detective said all right in an exasperated kind of tone like well ok that's your path line just nothing i can do about it and when you review the video photograph of my client and then and then hold him there while mr trevino who has called into the police station to report his car stolen they hold the witness there while bass in the patrol car out to my client's house pick him up reamed back to the police station steady him all by himself in the front of the police station turn the lights down  allow mr curtis to view the a show well after they have already told him that he has failed to select the correct person and during that time the police officer actually a different officer a lieutenant was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor from being an accomplice to offer to a first degree murder he's allowed to plead to a misdemeanor in nominal jail time the other person who placed mr trevino there but does not say he was the shooter gets all of his charges dismissed even though he was also an accomplished arguably to the murder but most certainly through the destruction deciding whether they believe these two people not whether he was wrongfully ident it's not really the wrongful identification really isn't the issue in the sense oh it absolutely is because the the issue is these guys are lying to cover up for one of their and a debt that's a debt right now and i am at home with my girlfriend and she testifies that he was at home with her and so if it were only shall and that's the problem with the idaho supreme court analysis because what they called is that that they find that there was not an unreasonable excuse me we did not find any lineup i mean of the show a lot it's an unreasonable application of the foster case where the united states supreme court says repetition of a stain person in more than one identification procedure violates two process just start with the videotape mr trevino of course argues that there was clear it's happening however every court that has looked at this video today and i have also looked at this video there is absolutely court found that as i recall to the extent that with with respect to during his argument that the officer was kind of trying to communicate that he had picked the wrong person that if that if that were true picked the wrong person out of that line of his whole identification with that lineup if you look at the tape it is a quizzical he's not sure at all he's picking one up and there's certainly nothing in the tape and with respect to the argument that the state court ignored other evidence of suggestibility of course counsel characterizes the detectives reaction as exasperated at reaction i looked at the video tape i certainly don't know t and indicate that he had picked the first picture and not line up and then even after mr curtis said can i take a look at it again for whatever reason there's certainly no evidence in the take that he asked to take a look at again because the detective did anything to make him think he had picked shooter is coming down or the person we think the shooter is coming down the state district court said no that didn't happen that the only indication was that the registered owner of the vehicle was coming down to report  car stolen with respect to mr curtis his reactions to that i don't know if it's just based on his fear that it might be the same guy but there was certainly never any impression left by police as mary told him i your car but i don't think there was really need details and you know he first said oh sure i'll do that you're my friend i just want to look out for you well i think that your appellants counsel argued essentially and that fact that you have and what sort of just puts the nail in the cotton is that the witness stand sign one hundred percent sure that that's the guy that was there and that that was the guy was the shooter so then the it was you and then just you have the other two people that say yeah you were their employer sure the murderer right and absolutely i do i'm not arguing that the identification is completely or irrelevant i think it is relevant but i think it is also corroborated by the district court noted in its harmless error analysis testimony undercut hers which is you know she would have noticed if you'd ever gotten and he in fact testified that he didn't get up and went to the door