petitioners maybe as corpus petition each of these errors independently and certainly when considered cumulatively compel reversal of the district court's judgment in this case the clearly established federal law that's correct because it is united states supreme court authority that applies but however both in terms of examining whether or not  inquiries made in terms of whether or not the statements made by the petitioner were in fact statements that might have been considered sufficient to invoke the right to counsel certainly there is persuasive authority in the circuit that the district court properly look at in this court can look at in determining whether or not the district court error and basically from maryland dismissing the miranda this claim in the petition when you have to find a supreme court stated that the invocation of the right to counsel number one is very distinct from the invocation of the right to remain silent and that in order to invoke the right to counsel what is required under supreme court law is simply at a minimum some statement that can be reasonably construed as the expression of a desire to have counsel present and it's issues contention your honor that under that authority the district court's review desired to talk to him but again what we would contend are no are very unequivocal terms at least under the supreme court's authority and obviously we're not revealing with lay persons we're dealing with the age suspect the defendant her of room to maneuver as it evaluates this whole passage here where he says where's the attorney well i'm going to ask you question ok i want to talk to you but i want to know what's going on and then i want to talk to you detective felix the state court could recently determine that whole passage is at most an ambiguous suggestion and certainly is an other big us calling was willing to waive that right and he did that is his statement and his written waiver i want to talk to you i don't want to remain silent i want to talk to you he desired to give a full confession that night you know which is which is what law enforcement obviously are hoping for in a the reason it's specifically your honor is that perhaps standing alone those questions could be reasonably construed by some of the court as an unequivocal i mean equal perhaps standing alone but what we have here that i think really attorney present during that questioning that's the same exact circumstance present in the can one of the cases that i refer to of the circuit where the defendant again did not ex here questioning itself had not really are the interrogation have not really begun so we're not dealing with a situation where there is a potential invocation and then subsequently you know by his statement there's the court is asked to consider whether or not  the lack of a specific waiver when it should have been clear to the officer at that time at a minimum of the exams well i'll just ask you a question and do you do you want to talk to me says felix holinesses ok i want to talk to you but i want to know what's going on where you're on in a situation like that and untrained an educated man under the circumstances of being suspected of a serious crime where he wants to confess he wants to talk to talk he wants to do the right thing yes and he's being asked well do you want to talk you don't want to talk he wants to talk again that it's a big distinction between the desire to add to the crime to provide the information required but he's not he doesn't understand and it's not made clear enough to him under the circumstances of the lack of waiver and then the questions raised all the detective feel it should have and that's quite a set although not required clarifying questions are advised are appropriate and under these circumstances clearly detective felix should have at least followed up as far as what he meant by well where is the attorney he mean it's going to take him a long time and under those circumstances and there's a federal case that says not just an inference of discrimination a state court high an inference of discrimination and then the just recording reviewing it that presuming that that is the correct standard we will then apply a standard of  presume it's correct the district court what is that the district court made no independent no independent i mean them notwithstanding there was no evidence of hearing not even a not even an independent review your honor and we would ask that this court order that at least that independent review be made require the burden shifting to the prosecutor you know one thing i noticed about that that i didn't see the defense lawyer saying things like judge but it's not your opinion that counts it's the prosecutor's the subjective reasons that matter look like the defense lawyer at the stifling defense counsel all defense counsel said was five out of six you know that statistically it's there's a problem i never heard that if i never saw where the defense lawyer says judge i have ject to your giving the reasons or i respectfully request that you demand the that's correct the it's i guess what i'm wondering is if there you know if you're right we have a couple of options option one would be to set it back for a hearing where the prosecutor would try to place i still fundamental two to two to petitioners rights to a fair trial here so fundamental to his due process rights that even if he didn't follow up in the way that your honor has indicated number one he made the objection in even having not i believe the cases say that where there's a due process violation of that type of a magnitude this quite is certainly that the court's willing to consider the claim without an objection but if this case goes back to judge the reason we say you have to have a hearing prosecutor comes in and says you know all those reasons the judge gave on the record those are my reasons exactly you know judge division believes or does that that's an issue then go away is that the end of it that it it's basically resulted in a violation of teachers rights to a fair trial in light of that the remedy really the only proper remedy would be a new trial you i think the strong likelihood standard and then in a footnote indicator that indicated that on account of that review before the federal district court would be very noble and then the course although endorsing for the state court to sit there and make the prosecutor's case no i don't think so i think you know in in vasant itself the supreme court talks about the crime of facie case being dependent on a consideration of all the circumstances including the explanatory ones and this course in october versus people i want to say that i'm not even half of a prosecution well i think if they're explanatory if they're if they're if they're within the  demeanor the answers the conduct of the poor daughter even know when you get to state if and when you get to stage three there might become a question of whether or not they were in fact the actual subject of reasons of this particular prosecutor leslie one of the one of the fallacies of that argument is really don't know who else was left on i mean the judge says juror number thirteen has a son who's in prison and there's really no real exploration about other people who are left on the jury and whether she was the only one who had a son  contemporaneous if you action as being an element of the bateson fame under federal law independent of any procedural bar and i think i think to the extent that's that what we have going on here also has to be a function under the supreme court standards of review of all of the circumstances i think if that rule is converted into a kind of a curse a sub rule that if there is a certain arithmetical rate of i can agree with your honest premise that it's simply the showing of the five of six without any consideration of all the circumstances does legally established as a matter of law promise that she came as a five out of six plus the prosecutor never offered well i don't think i don't think i don't think that's a that's a fair criterion when there's been no request under under under the procedure a set out objection to me i know i think if the judge if actually come forward with the with the subjective reasons i don't think the absence of a volunteer in those reasons really to play a role in the in the calculus there are other there are other factors  within the judge's perception you know race of the defendant race of the victim how the what what the what the questions of the of the jury were what the demeanor of the jury was these are all things they couldn't write to the judge's attention the judge made note of some of them there supported by the record there was no dispute that they were accurate there was no suggestion made either in the trial court or in this report that there were other factors to be brought to bear on whether or not having made that privation case the burden appropriately shifted as it should have under batson and it did not and the in this case your honour's the  this as the trial court in this case in fact in imposing its own view as to what the reasons were in taking that that opportunity or that obligation away from the prosecutor that is where the not even give the product the defendant the did not require this was me the prosecutor to state articulate his reasons so if that would that would mean your honour's that if in fact the prosecutor