restrained and the record really is silent on that the holding just hearing have a burden to come forward with that evidence after that hearing i mean that's the purpose of the hearing in order to determine whether he was prejudice and whether only thing that could be seen was a bit of it from the bottom of the leg so as i read the trial court's findings what the trial court is saying is to the extent that there was a late brace here it was  is really his questions if the trial judge wasn't aware of it and there was no objection made by the defendant for what why would the court have called such a hearing nobody brought it to the trial judge's attention the we're dealing with a case here you're ours where we have the testimony of an eight year old girl fifteen feet physical evidence was was very weak we had administrative doctor who didn't get it all indications were normal in every respect but we talked there are different kinds of you're the supreme court cases that i am aware of the deal with sort of the you know arm and leg shackles where the guy has a chain around his waist and there is no doubt when he walks into the courtroom  wrestling with the fact that the facts though don't establish as fully as you leave them to that led to the to the prejudice of the defendant i mean this is a very odd case where the trial judge and then the defense lawyer didn't even know that this device was on and we've got this sort of ambigu conviction hearing in which a finding is made that it wasn't prejudicial because of the peril of the manner in which it was concealed and this is starting to sound a lot less like the traditional sha so there's no question that both sides could have done more to answer our concerns over the state of the record the question is whether on this record this panel can declare that the state courts post conviction conclusion maybe what is perhaps the easiest and quickest answer and that is something that one of your honors touched on i don't remember which one and that is that there was no objection at the trial court as a matter of due process to show due pro that you you can prove actual prejudice so you can prove that the jurors actually were biased against you because there's right where you can prove that this particular restraint was so bad that the jurors must have looked at you differently or and perjure guilt from the shackles and i have to if the court's rulings on so forth at page eight of the of the read brief and what the court says is i'm satisfied if this sort of her strict advice is no more prejudicial than simply that it becoming apparent to the jury which is impossible the record to show that any of the jurors saw this this restraint or knew what it was i guess they did they they may have thought the movie to use means that it was something that he was wearing for medical reasons and there's simply no evidence to show that they knew that he was wearing it i would disagree with opposing counsel contention that there's a finding that the jurors saw i think just common to the point that you made or the question that you asked i think is is is more t point and that is perhaps he was in front of the jury or walking in front of the jury a couple times during the trial when the jury was there but there is no finding the jury saw it and and mark and there is definitely no finding or any sort of evidence to show that the know that they're that the that the petitioner was wearing a leg brace that is almost completely hidden beneath his pant leg and then there's not really any way that the court can hold a hearing or know that it needs to do so that's sort of tied into the sort of still versus williams weaver argument