were confuse them in a way that they could convict oh first degree murder i would like to reserve two minutes for a better that's fine thank you me please the court my name is when you were more combined to commit a felony or to make an assault and in carrying out the common purpose and others killed one who enters into the combination but does not personally commit the wrongful act is equally responsible for the homicide as the one who directly causes it the instructions continue to say such responsibility attaches even though such conspirator was not physically present in the actual committed and extends even to a homicide which is not specifically contemplated by the parties now court discussed in francis we frankly the language that really contradicts added an expletive story language we can assume that the jury followed one instruction over the other and in that sense this clarified instruction that the commonwealth has since adopted so to that point the commonwealth recognizes that there is a natural risk of jury confusion when when you have a general accomplice i believe instruction and even   that effect on it but there is also testimony at trial that mr bennett and no one in the in the conspiracy intended anyone to be home to be hurt so with regard to whether or not this could be harmless this court has cautioned previously that the correct the correct inquiry is not rather to just look at all it probably admit evidence that suggestive of defendant's guilt by virtue of a jury of who found him guilty but rather to look at the honor but even giving a gun to someone who has proven in the past to be an irrational person does not necessarily speak to the intent that that can be used in a manner to commit a homicide and  with and the federal strickland claim was your honor and you only have to do is to look to see that now chief justice souter was concurrence which the majority joined and said as a practical matter this is a stricken claim and even go back to the two thousand analysis your way the shark if the council did not bring up a good and valid claim and therefore he was persevered and said that is an incorrect analysis you have to look at it as a reason a probability of a different result and that's just not available here well let's let's look at the merits here is the pits a little less protective and extended even to a homicide which is the consequence either of those such homicide is not specifically contemplated by the parties that can't be cracked under that you have the first degree murder charge which is absolutely correct and as we screened my i was i defended scase this is not the risk that you hadn't and laird it was unclear who the murderer was it was obvious from day one of this trial that may have had the intent to kill prefers to be murder the other must be a why it bit better it must have the same intent and i don't see there that it says testimony very important on this point because he's testimony on the stand is that i was just driving by he says come running out i have no idea what's going on and then the prosecutor confront some of the rhetoric that says i would well you know what the matter what happened pascha i wasn't there when they planned it so he could have said a robbery when the prosecution said what do you mean they planned it he said this shooting ken why it was in that second cabin why it concealed his participation he went he met with my again he retrieve the murder weapon and then he destroyed it right and minimum disposed of it knowing it was the murder weapon used to kill miss way not raised in the district court level mr bennett has a properly articulated freestanding due process claim irrespective of whether or not the pennsylvania supreme court addressed that claim he properly gave the state quote the opportunity to educate that claim on the merits they did not