statement that was redacted improperly the district court found that it was error and the only question of us whether it was harmless error and our are questions not with the district court  yes it was because the incident reasonable application of the facts you have the statement of chandler that was redacted in a way that basically there was no no doubt that that that if it's if it's done in a way that you cannot identify then then it's miserable but in this case is that really what it is and what happened and that's why i'm asking is why not be seems to me that income could have applied to five or six people who were in the crowd why do you disagree with  used the wrong standard i think the standard is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and we talked about that in the briefing but the the facts to me that the facts are that you had chandler making this statement that clearly pointed to our client and then we have johnson who gets on the stand in essentially refuses to testify and then you have a police officer who who refused to refute his denial by tell by testifying as to what he the statement he gave to the police under procedure in california called people versus green and i think it's disgusting cal california versus green also you basically me that's the critical issue here is you know if it's all the thing on the predicate and if in fact the statement clearly was first your client then you have a strong argument if it does not clearly refer to your client refers to lots of other folks are ok if you can cut enough stuff out right for a move any possibility that somehow that the jury can read into it the name of the name of the other person and here the california court says in great a court from the redactions that replace a proper name with an obvious blank the world delete a simpler simile notify the jury that a name has been generally should not be amended generally here there was nothing to indicate the name of been deleted there were ten to fifteen people present at the crime scene and chandler's redacted confession named only about five of them in addition to numerous unnamed bystanders three actors in the crime or among the unnamed the person who gave chandler and got a person from the rifle person took the rifle way from the shooter these three men were free to have someone a person an individual person was nothing to indicate that anyone name it been deliberately deleted further assuming for the sake of argument that the jury believed the names of the hand and provide of the shooter and remove or been redacted there was no basis to infer that washington must have been one of these men and they think so why is that on reason one unreasonable application of federal law tell and then you have the other the other the other testimony that's that wasn't tested either through cross examination meaningfully you know moreover well moreover you say you have the court saying now you must understand that the evidence or the statement attributed to mr jenner may be considered by you only as it relates to mr chandler and not and be not be considered by use it relates to mr washington so the court told the jury that's nothing to do with washing your client's washington yes i understand that's what i meant earlier when the court said this is not admissible against your client so there's no confrontation problem well i think my question is is the reaction i think that i believe there is there's