no dispute that the two jury instructions that issue were erroneous and never should have been given the nevada supreme court said as much on direct appeal this leads to the nd undisputed quite trial counsel's failure to object to these two instructions amounted to deficient performance the district court concluded there was no reasonable explanation for trial counsel to bill your to object and as the lower court noted in its decision they responded you don't argue otherwise that leaves the real issue before this court prejudiced mr ramirez maintains that had the court properly instructed the jury there's a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted or convicted of a lesser offense the evidence against mr ramirez was in a strong as the state claims the state's primary witnesses were brother and sister who themselves were meth addicts and in fact had you know that day and two stories than struction is related to specific intent and everyone agrees now it seems in the briefing that it was error with respect to those two instructions but then there was the other instruction on conspiracy which says that you must and then could commit or aid in the commission of a specific crime so why does not that instruction you are the the instructions came out in this trial was that the correct conspiracy instruction came st and then it was followed by the incorrect coconspirator liability instruction and that instruction told the jury that even if the object of the i'm i'm sorry i'm getting a little bit of feedback so i didn't i thought you might be asking a question but for me just to complete my answer i think there's no way of knowing how did jerry got to the verdict that got to you and then it's possible that the coconspirator liability that that incorrect information led the jury to conspiracy which in turn led to st degree murder the the in the incorrect instruction told the jury that every conspirator is legally responsible for the act of a coconspirator it follows the probable or natural consequences if they didn't put on any evidence in the case of the conspiracy to commit murder that evidence that they offered at closing w this day well they both walk in there with guns so they must the pocket about it but there's no independent evidence and the conspiracy count if they lump it in its conspiracy argument under a court of erie of liability for st degree murder barrett said that there are three ways you can convict mr ramirez either he actually was the shooter aided and abetted the shooter or he was that part of the conspiracy so its entire discussion of conspiracy centered around  by address what significance we should give to the actual discussion in the legal discussion rather than about a supreme court on the effect of these two instructions so in that sense i don't think it's proper even if the court did give deference to the nevada supreme court decision and certainly it was a ruling on the merits then that's not a reasonable  state as opposed to had trial counsel properly objected and the court overruled that objection giving these that iranians instruction then it would have been that shot that standard in the state would have had to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that this opening brief address the claim the prejudice part which was the only disputed part and as a result there was no waiver or forfeiture of the issue here in with that if you're honest have no further questions i will missed there can you trust counsel's argument that we can't tell from the combination of these instructions that the jury necessarily found specific intent asked to  coconspirator yet didn't have that intent for the murder to be met this court which is prejudiced there was no dispute on deficient performance to find that we ever were for sure at this junction after a full briefing an oral argument would just be devastating to disturb the air as it would make him pay a very  the strategic decision his attorney made to focus all of his efforts in the opening brief on the disputed issue so i asked the court not to find that mr ramirez waived anything here there's absolutely no evidence that mr amir is conspired with mr managed to commit murder they went from their three casino to the palms apartment which is just a few blocks in the car with them the entire time with brandy and rob neither of them testified to any discussion or meeting in fact the respondent just mentioned part of the plan might have been to get money well if the plan was to get money to recover from this bad guns deal then that is the object of the conspiracy and the coconspirator liability instruction allows mystery to conclude that if but the shooting of mr ortega who violently confronted them by ripping off his own shirt if they find that that shooting was a natural improbable consequence of a conspiracy to get the money back then he is responsible as a conspirator and he's responsible under st degree murder and that's the problem here we simply don't know this court evaluates its claim to know because it is a martinez claim and so far in this record there's just simply no evidence of conspiracy that was just this theory that it likely tried to use to get the st of the murder conviction and closing argument the only evidence they offered was the say well based you can infer that they talked