too far from your michael whatever you are but armed with that suggestion to you certainly it's the obligation on the district court to review the transcript but even then there are exceptions if nobody sides are part of the transcript this video of the transcript this video as an exhibit so where do you drive this is almost unconditional obligation to the district court to review this video so talking about a question of of whether there is sufficient evidence here if if the jury saw why what why would not a reasonable jury have drawn the white is i'm not a gun expert but i do know enough about them to know that there are different lengths of barrels and shotguns and i know there is something called the sod off shotgun which is designed to be concealed but there's nothing in this record whatsoever that says that this was a sawed off shotgun so assuming it was a shotgun of of a normal length can you conceive of a situation in which somebody can be sitting in a car with another guy with a shotgun get out of the car with a shotgun and the person in the car couldn't see  i was just waiting for your answer but again it's hard it's hard hears your got you go in and out when you when you get a little bit further away from your  advance or not he rushes into the store and he doesn't go to the aid of the person who got shot he he orders eat your client is not on right so he orders the guy to take o now why would the guy take off all of his clothes but for the fact that the other guy is standing there with a shot answered are you answer that one so you would concede that it's reasonable to believe that the guy or the guy old age your client because the other guy is standing there with a shotgun and after every just shot the other employee yet sold the theory of the state is i understand it either correct or incorrect here is some sort of combination of constructive possession or joint so why would this not be an end dish of joint possession they both set out to rob the store whether it was at that time or not one guy goes in should see a gun the other guy rushes in after him and then takes an active  are assisted by the guy with a gun it just sounds like  the st thing i want to talk about is this threshold issue of the you know quote unquote missing surveillance video in the district court record now you know st of all applying the rules of crowds to this case would represent an expansion of there will be yond testimony testimony being the life blood of the trial you know it's crouse to i think if the petitioner a little bit of a leg up because that was video in that records and then the state record adequately summarizes the content of those records and the defendant rather than disputing those facts that appear in the  summary instead it is disputing the conclusions that should be drawn from x and that's exactly what happened here we have no one is meaningfully disputing the major bullet points on the timeline of what happened in th that's correct your honor what i would what i would respond i think it's important to draw a distinction here between the the undisputed facts and the inferences that arise out of the popes facts so to the to the two points you made st of all the concealment that we are fully on board with the version of facts that is this mr back kept the gun concealed until he drew it you know he kept it within his clothing until he drew it on the clear regarding the size of the gun you know that that's whether the effect of the size of the gun on the  y that this was concealed through the car ride that's an inference and i'd also add that the size of the gun it appears in the testimony as well so you know i've yet to hear exactly what the district court would be doing that doesn't entail what's fundamentally the job of the jury which is to say you know i don't believe this idea that mr back that these two didn't have a if the question is was whether the why and was an armed robbery or a robbery or we know whether this guy was appropriately charged with be involved and continue just look at the video we've got testimony on record mr guy when he arrived in the store and saw the back coming out he's saying he was talking something and i also think that we might be giving a little too much too much weight to this idea of the length of the gun which again it did appear separately in the testimonial record to answer your question earlier judge strachey about the sum total of the lifelong acquaintance there was the fact that he acted as it looked out and that came from a witness as the armed or the uninjured victim testified to that there was the statement that he didn't know he was going to shoot him right then but there was that might be a case i don't want to parse it too much but they knew they were going i mean at the very least i believe petitioner is admitting that they showed up with the intention to commit an armed robbery so i one thing the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt because you know eve you've got the evidence he's got to support the charge court under kratos and the simplest lie to resolve this whole i would disagree your honor respectfully i think that's not the question before this court the court the question is if the st question is at it's was the michigan's court of appeals decision reasonable and they did see the video and what i keep hearing is is that you know let's look at the videos for what is it going to i can't possibly imagine a scenario in which the video reveals that no reasonable juror could have drawn these inferences i mean it would have to be fundamentally different from the summary of the video that appears in the court and the petitioner does not argue that it is actually different what he what we keep doing is engaging in these sort of nd guesses of potential inferences i mean let's say that mr hobson after the gun was fired he acts visibly surprised he's stunned he you know he's frozen in his tracks and then goes ahead and assists with the remainder of the armed robbery you know you could very well say wow that's done looks like he didn't know that was coming but a jury could say you know maybe he's afraid of loud noises maybe you know there's something to his idea that he didn't think he was going to shoot right that but he knew he was armed you know these are all jury questions and i we are looking at the michigan court of appeals the reasonability of that decision and their interpretation of the record so  gun i don't think you can retroactively impute malice by the fact that he decided to hop on board with the robbery but here we have a tapestry of circumstantial evidence that there was a plan and michigan recognizes that when you know there's a plan there's a valid inference that everyone was in on the details of that plan and so i think the post shot conduct is relevant to mr hobson's pre shot knowledge it you know i really kind of dipped into the merits in the course of talking about this threshold issue i think that the you know the sufficiency the evidence is what is right there i think it's important to remember opinion used the wrong framework and i think you know i will be the st to admit that it opinion was a little bit puzzling but i think that that their inclusion of a discussion on felony murder should be viewed in the context of the fact that these two appeals were consolidated and i think they recognize that mr it you know it doesn't really matter because at the end of the day they did turn their sights on nd degree murder the elements of that crime and and they properly analyzed it and in any event under rector this court reviews the decisions of that state court and not