court to basically do the jury inquiries that the state court should have done in two thousand in that was seven years after the completion of take are you saying you don't really care just that there needs to be any three i mean i think that could be an inquiry or counsel i thought perhaps your argument would  be and we have to ask you about where this clearly established law is but that under clearly established supreme court role this book should be considered  an extraneous influence and secondly given that it was an extraneous influence that the trial court sho of the jurors things of that sort those of the types of extraneous matters that are founded reported supreme court cases so so i'm struggling with the i'm  to your position but i'm struggling with the notion of how we can say that it's clearly established under the supreme court precedent because that's what limited that it's clearly established that a book like this can be considered extr seemed to remind us of there's a difference between the application of fundamental principles to a new fact pattern where the application of those fundamental principles those new facts is this clear to us from that and the extent the extension of fundamental principles to a new fact pattern and the one seem to be we should not but the reasonable but the extension notion is not with the supreme court presently is aren't you extension of the supreme court has said that there were in that case there were constitutional distinctions between the proceedings and there was actual case law in the supreme court explicitly reserving the issue of whether or not it would apply here we have no separate constitutional or the proceeding that's exactly the same kind of proceeded to trial and it is of the jury i'm a little unclear from reading your brief how you feel that issue should be you would agree that is a separate issue that has to be addressed to sekret but that there has to be some form of issue with the appeals courts application of the definition of extraneous influence a member in other words decision takes issue with whether the appeals court required to close the connection between the matter that was in litigation of the parties on that occasion and the book  that was found here and secondly there seems to be a term that the appeals court was wrong to look at this temp or accident or look at this connection issue in deciding whether to hold a hearing in the first place instead of as part of a prejudiced inquiry after a hearing took place on that second issue the petition hasn't directed the court to and i are not found any case where the supreme court sets forth some kind of tempore all order for these things to take place in the williams davis case from the d c circuit in this court's decision and grew in the d c circuit directive that in post conviction claims of extraneous influences that do not involve third party contacts with the jurors that the lower court should look at whether the material is preppers prejudicial and the type of material it is in deciding whether to hold a hearing there i believe it was with respect to washington post articles and a dictionary in this court's decision rule in this court upheld a district court's decision not to hold a hearing for two reasons one of which was because the lawyer job did not p so i understand the circuit precedent that says that maybe some type of extraneous matter doesn't require jury or i question whether that's part of clearly established supreme court once the supreme court found that this was a once the next found that this was not an extraneous matter all right anything else they said is really good material much you're positing some sort of alternative  we say that the supreme court has not held that that a book not about the case comes with the end extraneous influence but that's such a the duction from its case will add that it fits within in the we've announced the principle even though we may not have these precise facts before us that's essentially wrote that proof i want to resist that that is definitely the logical result that the supreme court would take maybe they would in the case maybe they wouldn't we don't know but if i'm the state court influence that has been direct or explicitly or unequivocally tied to the case and justice is a leader when thomas recognized this in their dissent in in the cases in that reiner narrow and in their words were offered no specific guidance on what constituted quote the matter tending before the jury which is sort of the nub of the issue here was this about a matter pending before the jury and to the fact that that in you of you this isn't another exemplar of the general principle this is in the white against what the language an extension of that general principle to  a bible passage that defense counsel hadn't focused part of the penalty phase even though that was just a different influence or justices thomas and overeager weren't convinced that that was within clearly established supreme court case was defined by remedy of this isn't just a different influence cases you're not saying that i don't have a misunderstood your argument because it's a well obviously if this were a book about this specific case you would not argue well  has some very interesting material comments about criminals getting off easy despite the use of knives to commit murders it talks interoperate or terms about defense counsel who manage to get people off that kind of thing sure it's not about this case but taking a realistic view about what it means to be a matter in litigation better litigation is a murder case involving the use of a knife spork at a higher level of abstraction makes comments about murders and bowlby not why is it such a leap to say well at that level of abstraction this is not about the matter in indication i don't understand why if we were to take the view that matter even julius caesar murder and when you're an express those wouldn't require hearing but this book would look to draw these kinds of lines about a whole book about a murder by stabbing versus the political book with a few lines about a stabbing and somehow do that and he the supreme court's holdings have not been at that level of nuance they've not been at that level of generality i suppose that sounds counter to contradictory but they have not a lot for that kind of line drawing at least at this stage yet on the issue of the s shoddy and that there was a third party culprit and news this wasn't a case where there was some kind of we were fighting a knife just happened to go in theory that was strongly advocated throughout the case and never argued that this that that his defense at trial was accident and  common sense if this had been raised with the state trial court in media and not you know a year later given the request for an extension of t wouldn't it have made some sense sort of just as a matter of judicial economy whether required or not to have conducted a airing while this today i can't disagree with that but unfortunately we're we're beyond that point now in the question is whether the appeals court decision was contrary to another or an unreasonable application of the supreme court's precedent you know there's something pretty unsettling about this case i mean there are this is  says they should and should be doing and i just want to point out that judge turner who is the superior court judge here was not insensitive or indifferent here he appointed counsel from c b c s because a concern about the witness advocate will allow a year for the attorney to draft the paperwork it wasn't just turn off slowing things down held a hearing in which you didn't shut down defense counsel at any point you let him go until he was done and it was only after all of that but he saw so i just want to resist any any idea that this was a you know