at the cross examination there was a case where there was request during cross examination for the disclosure i know that's not what i'm saying i'm saying that i it appears that this was essentially the notion and the nature of a hernandez you know there is a separate issue between the post trial discovery request and then the ice time that's what i'm what i'm saying is that the way this was treated it appears to have been a ruling that applies felt before if you apply the line to cases dealing with the disclosure during trial then there is no confrontation violation or was the state court decision unreasonable application which one i'm sorry i'm having hard time he expect supreme court precedent if you look at the case law with respect to what the supreme court has indicated is a very general broad rule with respect to limiting crank examination at trial  fact the court indicated that judges trial judges retain wide latitude in so far as the confrontation clause was concerned to impose reasonable limits based on concerns among other things to harassment prejudice confusion of the issues the they address disclosure but is dealing with their bridgeman of a cross examination that set forth the general rule with respect that the trial court maintains broad discretion within this issue and also in this case the investigation and nothing already anyway all the asking for is the address but i think in this case if you look at the once again the general rule as far as what the supreme court precedent is to see is that this decision was contrary  to that general rules a broad rule and it's a case by case determination when you have a broad rule and while this court might come out differently i don't do not believe that the record is such that you can say that the state court brain gives me the last argument i believe i indicated that there was  there is no it's national injurious effect or influence to determining the jury's verdict placing this witness in the community is what didn't he didn't really go to the issue that had to be raised at this trial or member this witness was the only  client in this case there was no evidence she was not at the by when they searched her house there was no indication of drug activity the only evidence was this statement that she's allegedly made at radio shack  where she goes up to this woman out of nowhere and says are you part of the you know drug traffic if you can believe that story and then the other stories were these statements that were allegedly made well what's interesting if you look at hernandez for the same issue came up and hernandez in the court says in hernandez well look the day that you got the address was i forgot what it was and the case went on for another six or seven day that leads me to question is what is there a prejudice standard here and what is it i mean the thing that i found interesting when you go back and look at these kids you look at smith misses the witnesses name and address opens countless avenues for in court california law the prosecutors obligated to disclose thirty days before a trial of the penal code the names and addresses of the witnesses he intends to call at trial  say you don't disclose it like they didn't in this is then there's an obligation by the defense to bring a motion because the obligation on the prosecutor was to disclose who are they they're going to call a trial and that's just i better do something to find out that the issues at trial and there's no question when you look at the argument made by the prosecutor when he talked about the name of the person he said he i'll give it to you a week before trial when he talks about the address no way now no way and if you look at the court of appeal decision there is no question that that is how the court of appeals saw it also it was never raised in the court of appeal it was a pretty standard supreme court case as to say that you always have end as an example of what this circuit to say this is what we're looking at and this is pretrial they still required in hernandez they put on an extensive affidavit of you know they've been threatened there were guns at the at the house one of the phone calls the threats they have been indications that have been a contract on the guy this was in the declaration and the court still require disclosure of the address at trial now in this case as you pointed out in this case reputation in the community for unreliability that is in the court of appeal decision and the reason there is no evidence of her stand in the community is because there was never any evidence allowed the cross examination was cut off there was no examination allowed to find out what community she even lived in and the evidence of her reputation as the d n a nice testimony although she's reliable informant now that's that's great the point of alfred smith here is that our system is to allow cross examination that independent cross examination of independent witnesses and the opportunity to find independent w were to be followed it basically says the prosecutor can determine what is the reputation of their own witness well we've told you that you don't have a criminal record we've told you that she you know had sure she was living in fresno even if it's to mean it's possible that we could find out that next day that she's living in a community where she's dealing drugs for all we know i mean for others who are dealing drugs including the court of appeal but that's the argument we're making and i thank you but the point i want to finish with is that why this is important is we couldn't even find out where she lived in fresno what her immediate situation what let alone look petitioner information regarding the compensation in this case in that she worked on a number i think twenty or thirty but a number of cases that's a number not the cases i did i do not think there's an indication in the record that she was there was a providing of