degree the evidence of the second trial differed in only one central interim mad way the prosecutor the second trial repeatedly introduced into evidence the convicted co defendants out of court accusatory statements doubt standard and there's no reference we're now assists using the van arsdale factors that you're you're now making reference to and so should we be thinking of this is a country to case and have you preserve that chap could never the less sets were a precondition to the grant behavior is really so while on the one hand you might say well they previously thought that brett was a higher standard than ed now they're making clear that rebels question was going to how do we now think about which is actually the stricter standard because it used to be with a needle that we could think about back to actual prejudice as i judge of the prosecution and to my mind they were they were faking it they were planting you know well course we weren't there you know a lot of conversation that that according to the closing of the prosecution weren't in would say that you never which sort of four layers down right relies on chapman don't that don't we have though in a much more fundamental problem here in that number one there's the state courts analysis why isn't it contrary to clearly established federal law sure i'm so first i think you wanted to sort of talk down you know the we didn't mention chapman particularly and i think it's clear that we look at the judgment of the superior court not necessarily what they said in their opinion and the question is whether or not their judgment can be withstand add to deference and i think it certainly can  as to the factors again i think it's implicit in what they found they considered a whole host of things they looked at the testimony both of the eyewitnesses and found them credible and of course that's a determination that this court despite counsel's invitation task before you is to review the judgment of the superior court and to determine if that judgment is contrary to clearly established president of the united states supreme court which brings me to your point about the the devastating  claims really i think aside from starting a very basic underpinning article to these cases because they don't in compass the seem the same situation that the facts present here we can consider see just where they interacted with the state when they gave their statements to the police when they spoke at the preliminary hearing when they testified at the first trial and they got to the second child so not only were each of the two eyewitnesses internally consistent with their own stories but their stories  prejudicial appropriately prejudicial evidence against johnson regardless of whether or not there was an opportunity to cross on the statement that he made the police we can still find th additional testimony of our other witnesses so distant just in closing as counsel has that this was the centerpiece of our case i think is just an exaggeration of the facts really it's a useful piece of evidence and we are going to take advantage of it to the extent that there was a break or where there was going to be a sentencing hearing for starters because i just think that the church the judge did not those who did not come out of the judge's mouth i think came out of the prosecutor's mouth she said and then the statement was read  back in open court later but mr vegas said i think this defendant attitude and not showing any type of remorse and facts trying to undermine the truth seeking process of the commonwealth trying to bring some justice so i believe that because he has stood in the way of this process moving forward you should sentencing to a higher sentence than the sentence that was vacated earlier because he didn't comply with his the deal that we had struck and in fact has made this entire thing more difficult the trial judge just didn't say that it was it was the prosecutor making an to say that he had rejected any any questioning would be false he answered several questions and then was equivocal about the certainly his privilege in fact he didn't actually under the words i take the fifth until the second day of questioning and i think the facts to the trial court went through such significant efforts by colleagues sidebar some by going into conference in his ruling room to kind of determine what starr was trying to do indicates how very equivocal prosecutor is more a question by question i'm not going to answer that but i will answer this so maybe not that small order explained away is confession by saying well i was really just trying to get him to clean the crowd obviously neither of us did anything but if also want to quickly point out under the due process claim that the claim that we have been given lots of our attention to hear that counsel suggests that there was no finding by the superior court on the merits and my reading  violation i think if there was a finding that that's what we were trying to sort of garner some sort of well you're going to find him find this sort of an association of guilt situation but the superior court made a specific finding that at the chapman too any way you know they expressed or that reasonable minds could come up with so whether or not it was written on the paper is not really the telling point here is your position that the only reasonable application test has us looking at the  analysis we're only at the conclusion reached by had the judgment of the court a determination that determination determination the fighting would not necessarily what they write about how they got there there are a whole host of reasons that they ma even if that passes grap still requires then turning to a review of the entire scope of the ad and so it's kind of as as judge and also just said there's not a i'm sorry just to quickly finish the question it doesn't matter who you are first or second but both of those components contradicting testimony of the witness in assessing the testimony of others they necessarily had to have thought that the other testimony was sufficient in order to find the cumulative nature yes i guess i that that that's a good case is not actually cut the other way in the sense that at least there there was reaction of the defendants going in and there was a limiting instruction we don't have either of those circumstances here well no i mean you wouldn't because that wasn't the claim that they made i think generally speaking it didn't go through that first layer of review will sell the secret in a traditional whether or not that was objective leon reasonable i'm saying that makes a huge difference and that you really can't make a fair comparison