that approach the other important thing is that it's unreasonable application is not equivalent to clear error so to the extent the ninth circuit has previously doctor that approach it now has to be abandoned so do you agree that that makes your job harder not necessarily and i'm going to explain why the most interesting statement well let me say other other factors that can be taken into account such as you know did the state court opinion actually discuss the issue did it address the controlling precedent and  process it never cited mckinney or any of the supreme court authorities on which mckinney was based never side of the constitution never even purported to decide the due process that you clearly raised i believe it was yes i think that's even been conceded by the attorney general so in a case like that i think there's much less reason to say that the state courts opinion was reasonable because they didn't even address the issue in fact i think that in light of this at least my interpretation that there's a process issue as well as a result issue the court should pay attention to the language which talks about whether it's the first time in federal court in the courts so that's not going to educate it on the merits but i'm wondering if the same rationale wouldn't apply for instance to a summary adjudication of postcard denial has that really been adjudicated on the merits for  and quiet i have no evidence along those lines but then of course as soon as his character witness she began with the have you heard questions what would your opinion change if you heard that he bragged about stabbing it would your opinion change actually it's not it's not primarily i would i wouldn't say it was primarily character of the victim that's an issue i actually think the most damaging thing here was that the negative character  of justice that is i don't recall the exact language but it's something to the effect of so so rooted in tradition and conscience as to you know define our notion one of the arguments that could be made in your client's favor is that his lawyer at trial should have known the risk he was taking first and questioning as to hall would say maybe he should have appreciated that risk and maybe he shouldn't have taken the course that he did you know having had michael moore's statement in his files perhaps that w kids should not have taken and should have realized when he questioned holes character on cross that this might potentially be opening the door for a general character witness testimony as to  i think that ruling is wrong and so i think it would be highly unlikely that a lawyer would anticipate that but if that's the correct law then i guess maybe he should have drugs there too if you're under age there was no evidence of any other drugs and in fact the marijuana was supplied by patrick hall not by will the roche so it's really twisting of the facts then she does the l s d questioning and a couple of them are irrational preposterous absurd i think those irrational may be the one which we could be at least most familiar with because it he got a fair trial the question is was it irrational for the state courts for just the judges on the state court to conclude that he did get a fair trial well i guess the question is how do you define a rational rational specific then the prosecution may present evidence to rebut that fact to say if the evidence was found that the victim was known to be violent or  ruling that having cross examined as to hold character opened the door on evidence as to promote his character was that state court ruling correct that state court ruling explaining the language of the statute the plain language of the statute supported its result is it unconstitutional for the state court have given a surprising interpretation of state court long argument but that's not my question the question is was that i think the question is is it irrational was it irrational for the california supreme court in denying relief to find that it was not uncommon and i don't do i understand your position to be that when the government cross examined concerning character initially that the defense counsel quote objected but did not i mean i mean that's the defense counsel could have said no we're not we will not put in any evidence or ask any questions concerning the character of the victim i defend my position it didn't do that my position using but even the but that's that's entirely different issue the question of prejudice the question what was it in a fact of what the prosecutor asked to this person have a reputation for good character and that's acts as opposed to reputation or opinion testimony so if he had objected to the testimony about hall's good character and not even if he had put on his character to fans michael moore could not have testified about those delgado and early versus packer early versus packer says you don't have to cite a supreme court case but that was not a summary denial case there was a full discussion and