that in fact i'm going to commit perjury or i'm going to tell the story and based on only is there still his lawyer he he has discussions with his lawyers which are confidential and the lawyer then well actually were the rest of these are different the different parts of the record in which she's saying these different things you know yes she did she thought that in prior discussions he basically had given a crazy theory which i is how do you how does a lawyer deal with this in the real world you cannot know in advance exactly what somebody is going to say but if you have a ninety nine percent certainty they're going to testify falsely yours and you can't act on it because you don't know exactly what for allowing her clients to test find the narrative when he believed that he was going to commit perjury and i think the court has already indicated the record is clear that she believed she was going going to commit perjury we have a letter from counsel in the record that indicates that she didn't know exactly what he was going to say but that he believed it was going to be perjurious that he had told her many different stories council what's your response to  the question of what the california supreme court has stated is really not the issue rather it's whether the united states supreme court has has set a certain standard it is true that the state courts have required a certain showing in the california while there was certainly a very strong inference getting statements from the defendant that he was going to commit perjury there i don't think there was any you know evidence that overwhelmingly showed he was going to commit perjury an attorney has to look at all the factors and make make assumptions and in this case in fact the letter from counsel shows that she said to him i believe you're going to commit perjury and his response was i dearie to put me on the stand  i it seems clear under those circumstances what was happening was he was going to go up and tell a story he was scaring his client to put her on the stand and under nix the whiteside she certainly acted ethically under the circumstances in not questioning him what's more i would dispute counsel's representative representation that she was or your argument that she was not in fact representing her client at this time she was in corps she was representing and she simply was not a listening his testimony but in all other respects she says i believe you're going to commit perjury and he said i'm not going to tell you what i'm going to testify to and that he was going to dare her to refuse to participate in this testimony that i think an inference can even under th that she believed he was going to commit perjury and that the trial court understood that the reason she was not questioning him was for this reason granted she did not laying a firm factual basis is some courts are required to show why she believed he would commit perjury but i would submit that that that is not particularly relevant here where under the age d p a were examining whether we have a contradiction or unreasonable application a supreme court precedent and the supreme court has never if we assume for a moment that you're holding counsel is correct at least in that of the appropriate foundation or knowledge was laid before she refused to question  him how was he prejudiced in this case if at all well i simply think he cannot show he was precious he got on the stand and he told his story he claimed that essentially he had no participation in the criminal acts he was in the shower at the time was going to testify to so she would have been asking him questions blindly and under those circumstances it's simply impossible to conclude that his testimony would have been substantially different much less would have affected the outcome of the  acknowledge that in fact a defendant can have constitutional rights violated if he's forced to wear jail clothes at trial so but but the state court concluded that he wasn't so compelled and the question here was whether there was really an unreasonable to terminate the facts presented in the state court proceedings and in and in making that evaluation the question is not whether some court might possibly disagree or come to a different conclusion but the conclusion must be  given the minute order in this case before the first trial where petitioner was representing himself and where the trial court specifically advised him that the courthouse had trial clothing available i don't think we can conclude that the state court  unreasonably determine the facts in finding that he wasn't compelled to wear prison clothes he was told that prison clothes were available parent lee did not avail itself of that option apparently he did according to your opposing counsel in the first trial he did a having his family bring him clothes and apparently that's what he wanted now the record is not terribly clear perhaps he didn't want to wear the courthouse clothing perhaps he wanted his own clothes from home and that's what the what the discussion was about of the complication was about is that sufficient order of the government's obligation if he raises the question to come forward with the clothing of who murdered as a well i think when when he asks for clothing there has to be the government has to make an effort to provide him that clothing and then did they do that in the second trial well i it's from the record it appears that he had been told that this clothing was available and he never made a request for this courthouse trial quoting now maybe the question here is that that the record is not as clear as it could be ideally there would have been a record made with a defendant petitioner has has declined the courthouse quote courthouse building even though it's been made available to him the record granted is is quite unclear but the record does show that he was told that this closing was available at least before the first trial but i just very briefly like to well i think what happened was that that counsel had indicated that as far as getting clothing from the family that she had made efforts to get him this clothing that debt he brought this up on the morning of trial when the think that the court said no we're not going to take the time for you to get the courthouse clothing and i think perhaps there was not a adequate record enough or an adequate record made to determine exactly what happened really gets back to the point i was raising before the terms of the burden this defendant objected in the second trial to his being tried in prison garb there were the court didn't say you know we'll take a fifteen minute recess while you go get your clothing that you used in the first trial or let's wait for your family to bring the prison guard we decided you know you had this opportunity good buy i i'm interested in your view as to whether ask for the clothing the court denied that in effect did you disagree with that well i don't i disagree that the court denied access to the courthouse clothing well what would you characterize this what him and asked him about you know access to family members as well ok i understand a family part but it is the government's position that the defendant has an obligation to have a family member br clothing if it's not available at the courthouse in order to satisfy this constitutional requirement no that's not the government's vocational let alone at the family part what about the clothing that was there at the courthouse down to the court saying if anything about that of the second trial the court didn't say anything and i would agree if a if a criminal defendant want that clothing it must be made available to him he seems to have asked for well it's unclear whether he was asking for that courthouse clothing or not i thought it was very clear well i it seems to me that he said i don't want to be wearing prison gloves are pretty clear is not well it's it's he never requested the courthouse clothing and i would not judge does he have to in in the brief the trial court here very specifically admonished the jurors during flood year that the fact that the senate was wearing prison clothes was not evidence of anything certainly wasn't evidence counsel appreciate the argument