why i keep trying to think of a reversal that's what i have in mind some time ago there are three issues that a parent has raised in this case i intend to focus on the issue number three the insufficiency the evidence argument but naturally if the court has questions about the other two  perfectly happy to answer those questions this is a very unusual case for an insufficiency argument is unusual for at least two reasons first it's unusual because the state appellate court relied upon guilt now i've stated my belief and i'll say one more time i am not arguing that my clients conviction should be reversed because the state court reversed the co defendants conviction that is not the argument i recognize that there are two separate cases with two separate evidentiary scenarios where i am arguing is that the stay cool of appeals interpretation of a very short factual scenario which is exactly the same in both cases in r an inferring innocence from the facts and in my case taking the same exact facts and inferring guilt that that was not a reasonable determination of facts under twenty two forty four d to which one is on reasonable well i think it's unreasonable begins to sound to me exactly like the argument you've disclaimed which is that you can't have a decision maker or if a in this case an appellate body reviewing facts reach different conclusions on the same facts no that's not what i'm arguing your honor with all due respect when i'm i'm not arguing that because the conviction was reversed in one case it should be reversed in both cases where i'm walking that's unreasonable to look at the same facts the exact same client's case but the mere fact that the court was able to look at the same facts and find instance for instance if the facts were there man is walking down the street and there's a fire and then he starts running and in one case the court rules that because the man is running from the scene of the fire he must be summoning help to put out the fire and in the other case the court rules because the man is running from the scene of the fire he must be guilty of setting the fire and is running away to escape detection if the neck kind of the start i think we'd all agree that it's unreasonable to draw opposite conclusions from the exact same set of facts but that doesn't quite get you where you need to go because it doesn't say that the determination in this case was unreasonable and might have been the other case it was unreasonable well i think what's saying what i'm saying is that if the state if the same state court says that the car was blue in one case and looking at the same set of facts says the car was red in another case that that's one reasonable that you can have two people to the two facts to review this they court determination of facts including their own reasonable in this case i would argue that they were unreasonable because to think but first of all but even if you're right that takes you part of the way right then you've got to show that the evidence was insufficient will be that as it may you have to sometimes reconcile the jury findings with opposite testimony but you can't simply look at the same testimony and say yeah well that must have been the other guy and therefore we can scribe the actions of one person to another person mean there's no question of that there's not much question about that right whether he was the shooter or not he was there nobody reacted nobody said i graduate a couple of instances could be drawn but there is some difference here nobody said what's going on here what are you doing well the other in headlights look he was started he was startled by the fact the guy pulled out the gun there's no evidence that he knew the guy had the gun but coming full circle because the fact that there is one inference drawn in one case doesn't mean we come back to just clifton's question and that is appellate court found the jury found that the if you want to cut through to the noble review that is go no deference to the state court you still have the fundamental problem that for sufficiency of evidence the standard is put in any reasonable fact finder could the jury have recently concluded based on the evidence presented and at that point it drops out entirely what the state court of appeals and with that finding in mind rather the answer is no there was no motivation for him taking about there's no evidence that he was president w about the fact that the the dixon bars an affirmative defense and that this petitioner is pro se bennett vs miller specifically recognized that the procedural bars are affirmative defenses and that most cypriano ramirez testified in his trial he testified specifically regarding the phone call and what he said to almost mosquita during the phone call and now  his jury the ramirez jury found the over act that ramirez told mosquita that he was coming to take care of coming over to take care of business found out to be not true now this is in terms of time was the first overt act in the conspiracy obviously if you take away one of the overt acts in the conspiracy it changes the inference is one may draw on the rest of the evidence and this that the appellate court came to two different conclusions based on the remaining evidence is pretty much on remarkable the versus how we that's not just the end of it i mean there is there is one fact that is at least or one element here that's a little disconcerting which is that the appellate court itself appeared to recite to distinctively different inferences from the saying fact in terms of the reaction to the shooting or to the firing of the shot that is true but i believe that sort of that's reasonable based on the fact that the appellate court did not have before it the fact that ramirez made this call to the skate and said we are coming to take care of business that puts a whole new gloss on the remaining evidence and that changes the inferences you can make on that evidence if you don't have that important fact that that basically in terms of time starts out the conspiracy then the remaining evidence is a lot can be read consistently with the jury's finding that he said he would come over and take care of business there was no other evidence at trial to suggest that ramirez said he would come and take care of business so i believe that the jury can read this consistent or the jury can find that he said he would come and take care of business and that would be consistent with the evidence that he said we would come and take care of business because he is a part of we are you suggesting the biggest city he the result changes no i am not saying that