bothering me you've got a lot of really tricky exhaustion issues in this case that they're frankly difficult to sort out yet if i assume all in your favor everything's so austin i've not clear on exactly what it is in the state court's decision that is and contrary to force on reasonable application the supreme court or any or contrary to i don't think it's just an unreasonable application issue and it looks like they go back and forth every time he says he wants an attorney they stock and then eventually he blurts out something despite the police  people's mouth so basically it was like well you could argue this and that but that unreasonable application it has to be way out in left field unreasonable without a decision without an opinion yes that's correct the state has argued that mr delgado fails to exhaust this claim however the district court properly found that under peterson dressed as lambert circumstances surrounding it and there was given state between sergeant merriman and mr delgado without what had happened and clearly as it was an interrogation that was all about and led to the sergeant merriman taking notes and that was the questioning the suspect and the suspect answering the questions that's the suspect questioning the cop and the cock getting the information and answering questions so far i can't see how there's anything wrong and then the very next delgado then said with no question he's not responding to a question i was there and then marry him and says whoa wait a minute you told me you wanted to talk to an attorney occasion i don't understand what i'm missing that would make that it just too far stretch isn't that those are those the facts or something close to take those are the facts of the district court found and one other issue that through the state court of appeals in the washington supreme court the district court found that under peterson baristas lambert that it had been exhausted and again i believe the state was also cited to the gallic east out of alaska saying that it had not been exhausted but for the reliable he was a professor at the university of washington has testified numerous times the third the jury want to thank all of the value in this expert testimony for it was not cumulative and finally that  of federal law the findings of fact are not disputed they weren't disputed in the state court and the state court said because those findings of fact were not challenged they were treated as verities on appeal and they're not really challenged here in federal of the events to the jury when the trial court decided to admit this evidence and to exclude portions of this confession the only testimony before the court was the testimony of the officers and the testimony of the officers particularly detective gato asked him some questions regarding the chargers and possible penalties he said i'll get those answers for you if he leaves he then comes back a short time later answers those questions which point mr got a little admits that he was there did he did it and for that reason the trial court excluded that portion of the statement and during that entire time all that mr delgado said was i wasn't involved i was involved in the court still excluded evidence from trial the there is no case law however that says you can't talk to a defendant at all it says you cannot engage because gaudio interrogation and there is no case law that says you cannot answer the questions of a defendant and wants a defendant started to ask questions of detective merriman about the charges in the penalties there is no united states  it clearly states i want to talk to a lawyer i don't want to talk to you and so to ok to come back and try to initiate a conversation you cannot come back and back answered the questions of the defendant himself to ask and then the defendant initiated the difference lies he came in he was not there in the first instance with the  said i want an attorney i don't want to talk to you it was more equivocal than that it was maybe i should talk to an attorney which the supreme court said as a detective can't ask clarifying questions and so when detective well wait a minute i thought you wanted an attorney you want an attorney that was proper under supreme court precedent in the state of utah cation therefore even if this court were to conclude it was wrong it's still a judge to fully rescind one for that reason leave should be denied help me on something relating to exhaustion your exhaust emissions are really complex and our court has found exhausted and complex we went on one on  deciding that there was exhaustion and get to the merits that if if we wind up deciding them in your favor i know we can't do that if we decide in the defendant's favor but if we decide in your favor we skip the exhaustion and get to the merits or are we obligated to do exhaustion first your honor you can skip the exhaustion twenty eight u s c twenty two fifty four the standard cannot stand you can skip the exhaustion twenty two fifty to briefly address the exhaustion issue the i'll take the the easiest claims first claim three sufficient agreed to was presented solely as of state law claim that was the claim regarding the autopsy photographs and the nine one one tape claims to the doctor last us testimony and claimed for the prosecutorial misconduct issue you were presented solely in state law claims they were the citation to washington state cases is not sufficient to exhaust the claim when those cited cases themselves were decided both on state and federal ground and what the supreme court said in the fall of one versus restasis is that do not satisfy fair presentation when you require a state supreme court justice to go beyond the body of the brief to discover whether or not a federal claim is being raised and court justice to go beyond the body of the petition they have to go for the case off the shelf open it up read the case determine whether the case relies on both state and federal or just federal or state grounds and then decide what the petitioner is try delgado did not have an attorney when he appeared before the district court to not have an investigator any means to try to find you just explained to me what is so compelling about the statements that would change itself this ridiculous statement undermines