mr james's trial was ineffective by several extreme malfunctions i'd like to focus on three of those this morning first despite the fact that the trial court repeatedly stated on the record that the trial court had concerns that there was little evidence regarding when and where the crimes occurred no jurisdiction instruction was requested or get second the courtroom was repeatedly closed completely closed during persons starting with the jurisdiction argument i'd like to point out at the outset that there are two different ways that this court can reach the merits of the jurisdiction instruction argument the first is the freestanding jurisdiction instruction and it's in connection with that argument with that claim that the respondent raises exhaustion if this court went to the merits of the jurisdiction thing that way it would have to deal with the issue of exhaustion we  claim in the lower court you did not make it to the state supreme judicial court and therefore we precluded from reaching initially i would just say that the other way that this court can reach the merits through the ineffectiveness claim the claim that counsels and effective for failing to request a jurisdiction argument that claim is properly exhausted and would not require this court to go into the exhaustion analysis turning back into the exhaustion the main argument i would like to point out is that in clements this court noted that one way to properly exhaust a claim is to raise a state law claim that is practically indistinguishable from the federal claim and clements in turns quotes a case called nad warney another first circuit case quotes another first circuit case called land again and inland again and warning the court is very clear that one of the ways that a claim can be indistinguishable is when there is an issue of instructions  the court talks about claims can be indistinguishable from federal and state when their bedrock principles of criminal law and here are the jurisdictions rushing is one of the bedrock principles the claim is jurisdiction was an element jurisdiction was not presented to the jury therefore the jury did not find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt as required the core of that claim is the same whether it's phrased in state law for federal law because their industries are indistinguishable the claim has been exhausted nadkarni specifically what's lanigan lanigan was dealing with an instruction claim a very similar claim saying this instruction is incorrect jurisdiction here if a homicide which actually took place in another state was part of a continuous series of conduct which began with  and kidnapping it talks about coercion are binding occurring within massachusetts lending jurisdiction i have not seen any federal cases saying that that is insufficient federally to provide jurisdiction to massachusetts our claim here really is appeals court was incorrect in concluding that jurisdiction ellen that was unnecessary here we hold that accepting the massachusetts definition of jurisdiction accepting that the jurisdiction element instruction was necessary  indeed i believe you contested what state law actually required without getting into the question of whether that's a separate question from you and as i said before that you can reach the merits of that also through and that of mr says not raises exhaustion issues with respect to closure the respondent agrees that it's clearly established that the defendant's right reasonable alternatives and the court must provide findings to support closure and i would like to point out here particularly that the court simply did not always provide findings necessary to justify  closure and the record is clear about that and i'd like to point the court specifically to what i would argue is the most egregious example of failure to provide justification and that's on paper the joint appendix page four hundred  eighty six where a juror simply said that he did not want his brother's name mentioned on the record and the court closed the courtroom although the questions did not involve that juror's name that george brother's name thank clear that it should look only at the document itself as to the public trial claim i would argue that here the message their message it's appeals court properly stated to supreme court love properly used the factors present in this enterprise and while there are cases the judge although she was not requested to make findings or wor to there was no objection to the closing of the courtroom she clearly discussed this with both counsel prior to trial defense counsel asked for individual why dear so this was an issue as to how that would be conducted and the judge was very careful in defining that she would only lose a courtroom when requested for questions involving very sensitive questions of the jurors she only did it twice with jurors who were actually seated on the don't actually don't know if that particular instance but i would argue that the judge again was very careful to follow to make it clear on the record why she was doing this and that she was just using the least restrict means necessary especially here when there was no objection i would suggest that her findings were actually about to which she needed to do because while there actually only requires those findings if there is an objection as to the would just like to respond briefly to respondents points about there being no objection to the closure while or is clear with the test is the fact that there was no objection doesn't mean that the court doesn't have to follow the wall or analysis  courtroom is structural error no it isn't need to catch up on a few first circuit cases that were recently decided which are not in your br i would also like to actually read the the conversation between the judge and this and the potential juror the single finding regularly there were no findings the judge says you indicated you had a privacy concern what is that is the juror says actually i think that looking at this courtroom it's fine the judge says well we have sent one member of the press out the jury says my brother is gay so i just didn't want his name to be mentioned the court then goes on to ask the driver questions about whether his in his experience with his brother would impact his ability to be fair and impartial but certainly does not ask his brother's name and certainly would not have asked his brother's name that's not a normal part of why dear i think the closure there is clear that there were no findings made no alternatives were considered and that simply violates woller also in connection with the ineffectiveness claim i would just simply find out how critical the evidence was that would have been suppressed had defense counsel filed a motion that no effective defense counsel would have failed to file a motion in those circumstances