based on the fact that the codefendant statement could not be redacted successfully the district attorney countered that yes it could and proved to the court satisfaction that it could be redacted satisfactorily superior court then denied the motion for severance but ordered that the statement be redacted and additionally ordered the district attorney to make sure that witnesses did not make any mention of the redacted portions of the statement i don't see how the confrontation there could be more clearly raised so i think that the procedure this court can discount the procedural default identified by the california court of appeal i think the next question to which i will concede is a thorn in your question is the district court determined while accepting the deep fault which i think was improper the district court determined that when the prosecutor linked mr covert to ms covert statement that the procedure that should have been followed by defense counsel at that point was to object and request an admi that didn't happen so we argue i mean the position that we take which i think is clear is that at that point an admonition would have been for util because because the prosecutor had we stored the defendant who is complaining about it nothing of that sort took place here well it isn't exactly the same but i think it's tantamount to the same thing she said they stuck together like glue she said this statement is very damning to both defendants implying that it's an admission as to both defense or it's an admission against mr colbert in an accusation against mr covert i think the jury was obviously affected by that because they specifically asked for a reread of that statement wrote in on that and i think the reason that they zeroed in on that is if you look at the nature of the evidence in that it's i think it's very significant in response brief that page fifty four through fifty five when they go through and identify evidence links is so overwhelming against mr covert on each offense the only way they can wink the of things to mr covert is through his wife his wife stole the datsun she put her license plates the car that's in the in the warehouse she says they brought it she says he wanted it i took crank in exchange for storing it there's nothing there making it to  and the same thing with the i d s they're also in the toilet kit so that there's no direct link between mr covert and any of this evidence and i think that's actually why the prosecutor felt compelled to step over the line here because that   there's simply no link between mr covert other than that statement all of this evidence is associated with mrs covert there's no fingerprints they don't find any evidence that covert was there ever in  warehouse or the shop the only thing they have is he's in the bathroom in this house there's a witness who said she says actually in her statement that although it was his residence for the preceding month he'd been staying with his father who was sick there was also witnesses who said they seen him at his father's house so there's this tenuous link even to the resident although if he had been living there in the months preceding the arrest he was staying with his father so all of this evidence is linked is attributable to this covert and its  statement and converting it from an admission by mrs covert into and in culpa creating statement against mr covert that i think makes the link the defense counsel saying we invite you members of the jury to look at that statement of any supreme court precedent including richardson and it didn't apply any rule in those cases that contradicts the governing last set forth in those cases i'm talking about by applying a procedural default here under richardson but only with a limiting instruction that that that no objection was made allowed did not allow the trial court no confrontation objection was made did not allow the trial the prosecutor's argument i think is it is probably the most interesting part of this case that the appellant argues that the argument of the prosecutor converted this statement in your group an error w mrs covert under richards and the jury was in titled to link that just that the evidence of that statement to the other properly admitted evidence at the trial and the prosecutor in making her argument did not and this i think is a crucial distinction when bruton type of cases the prosecutor did not insert any inadmissible information into the redacted statement she did not to say that this was just heard or to say that you know constructive possession has to be exclusive it's certainly not true constructive possession can be joint and and the stolen credit cards found in that bag  other your honor i'm saying that the prosecutors argument to the jury was correct in their statement to use the statement against the defendant she didn't say that and i think that's an important distinction what does that mean  happen here this this argument was within the wide latitude granted to prosecutors by both state and federal courts because that's that mr covert said i stole the car and i circle address and then the fact that our defendant our appellant was just down there naked taking a shower and had a key to the other place where she said there might be cars part that was just a legitimate the read back i think somebody asked i can't recall who did did the prosecutor the defense attorney at talk about the read that read that and on page three thirty seven of the reporter's transcript their community their own bed and it had mr coverts visa card was kaiser card and his altered identification card in the same there and that's the court has any further questions i'm you with respect to the first argument that the finding of procedural default is not contrary to the law is clear that i default that's not supported and isn't a sort of default that's not supported by the record is not a basis for finding procedural default at the one the court of appeal found that he did not object to the redacted statement but at the point that the judge denied the severance motion and ordered the redaction and admonished the district attorney not to allow any of the witnesses to refer to the redacted portions there's nothing to object to if this case a gone all the way to the end without the improper comments and the issue i was raising that was if there was not an admission there may be a legitimate position of waiver but the district attorney's arguments over took that by converting it into a  that it's really a question on exhaustion right what they're saying what they're saying is is that if there had been an objection that's basically what the district court found that he didn't object to the comments  requested an admission the problem is that notwithstanding all the other instructions that my opponent identified through time clearly says we don't care about all those instructions if the statement directly implicates the through time the very last paragraph richardson says we think that if it's exercise etc that's possible then it says in the present case however the prosecutor sought to him to the effect of the limiting instruction by urging the jury to use that the statement didn't implicate him so they responded by saying oh yes it does it damns him so the court of appeal never got to that part of the trial the court of appeal said once the trial court redacted the statement you needed to object to it on confrontation grounds at that point our answer to that question was is that once it was redacted in accordance with the trial court's order there was nothing to object to because it complied with richardson at that point so in that sense all of these other waivers that probably won't help as well perhaps to see if they explicitly raised it although it might implicat