understanding that the jury came out with the just simply request to review the other documents absent looking at the affidavits which the magistrate really did not take into account all we have is that the jury for whatever reason was interested in seeing the the other letters for why does it go to work what what should we infer that goes to the well of course my argument is based on the the argument is that the only supportable inference is that for whatever reason the jury was concerned about whether or not this fellow actually wrote them and that's why they wanted to see the supporting documents because that's as as you're aware the particular letter the confession what he that they did have but that's all speculation as well i don't think so because i mean i really can't come up with any other reason whether in the world they would have one of that i mean to me it sort of senator kerry wants to use my exhibit to calculate damages on the most irrational basis i could imagine if you're used to really strange strange juries are strange things but i know they certainly do which is why i practice appell law you know we can't look at these although i argue in my brief that we can look at these declarations or this this report from the investigator but i mean thinking about it i thought well you know it's sort of a situation i think well like when you asked the police officer well the defendant wasn't there was he and the officer says well i don't recall seeing him there you know i think it's in that margin that they were working that's and my argument is that that some other way that provides a context for the jury's questions was a reference to these letters and the trial testimony or in arkansas counsel that might provide some context for why the jury want to see that it is my belief that they were  the jurors could not rely on it as evidence that it's correct however when all four attorneys are in agreement on the point and there's no evidence to the contrary being condemned this act in fundamentally confronted with the jury questions asking to see the other letters whether or not the only reason was authenticity certainly that was the logical question the jury might have since he'd heard the same ones so why wouldn't questions why wouldn't it have been obvious it's incumbent upon the judge to clarify with the jury what the status of those letters was or what they were properly allowed or not allowed to do with them so that they that in federal court the first time a court doesn't have the material and are you are you arguing that the i c claim is not exhaustive is that what you're telling me actually i'm saying that the claim that you are coming up with here is not a claim he came up with because your claim is based on additional evidence which  you thank you very much after his conviction that he filed an exhaustion petition in the california supreme court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and specifically raising the point that it was if there were none my position is this really is pretty much controlled by pulling back in the sense that there was a situation and the it was the judge's duty to act however had there been a duty on the part of counsel to return to request with the the exhaustion petition ma precisely that point that he should have any didn't so some but i mean sort of somebody should have done something because the jury was clearly wanted to say i mean you know it's not so outrageous but if it's to give the jury what they need  true enough but i mean if somebody goes into my room and puts their stash there i mean i didn't receive it you know it was just put there so i think because of the prejudice comes from the fact that they were they were roommates and we really don't know who did it maybe martin did it all by himself all of the stuff scattered around the apartment including in the that's why i understand that it might not be the most intelligent way for a criminal to proceed but it's certainly not i