case this court has certified three issues under certificate of appeal ability in this twenty two fifty four i would like to discuss a purse issue was the appellant's federal to process rights  violated when he was convicted of the crimes in this case under insufficient evidence if your honor please i would submit and i've also read the commonwealth's letter in response to your honor's questions that the only evidence presented in this case against the appellant was the fact that he was at the scene of the crime supposedly and he left with other people i would submit that that was not enough that the people  actually ran away with well the courts have said that evidence of flight and evidence of being with the people alone is not sufficient i don't know but certainly a jury culpability from flight right well this situation in this case is that he was seen running we don't know exactly from what took place at the trial that he was seen running after the shooting took place or whatever and  then three men were previously together right away that information is before the jury why can't they infer that he was part of that or was it x taxi drivers that because evidence of flight statement he basically said he was there at eight o'clock in the evening that's what he told the the public defender for the other defended on and in his statement to the other stamey major detective he said he had been on the scene for us for two weeks prior their right you know jennifer macdonald's testimony that she saw him there just moments before well i understand that she said she saw him on the scene there but again again that from that statement the jury can easily infer that he was lying about not being at the scene and and now aren't they can't infer his participation as a result well again i would go back to the  my initial thing that there was no evidence of any complex testament there's no evidence he got anything out of this there was no evidence of any type of agreement between these three the that the cab driver had money the cab driver had a polish the cab driver was shot the cab driver was killed there was no power in the taxi and there were no money in the taxi i can't a jury and further who ever show i'm also took the money hoping you wouldn't bring that up here are reminded reminded our court of the double level of deference we not only to stay juries but to state determination state court nominations  in how do you how do you distinguish factually but the evidence against your client versus the evidence the prosecution had  now no no i'm saying i think it's a difficult situation with that over rolling up but as i said before i mean i distinguished it before and i believe that your honors are are saying that  nice a stronger case or reversal that that job well because i believe as the points that i have stated there was no evidence of any agreement i believe the district court judge in this case said that there was an agreement there the in your client was convicted of conspiracy to rob robbery and murder now the jury has to find evidence of an agreement to convict him of a conspiracy all right but they don't need to find evidence of an agreement to convict him of robbery and murder if they find it he was an accomplice right and i am arguing that there was no evidence whatsoever of accomplice testimony saying that he was one i mean it's i can't argue the fact that he wasn't on the scene at some point and that he left with this man with but between this case and johnson because i'm saying that there was no agreement here that was shown what it rea there but then there was no evidence my client saw any weapon there was no more evidence my client had any weapon whatsoever there was no evidence tying my client into the premise is where the weapons were found there were no fingerprints redacted but the way that the statement was redacted and first off there were no limiting instructions given on two of the detective testified they were not given after the two informants from the prison testif because the lawyer never objected so there was no limiting instruction to after the detective testified but i am saying that because the words that they were used in the confessions and the words too were used in the confession that are particularly plied to the fact that there were three defendants on trial and that there were more than one and my argument is that these were not neutral redactions on like a court say just to say the word delete  that they did not do that did not do that but but the fact that that the words too were left in there and the words they were left in there i am saying is an improper redaction of the statement now and there were two t they were total three defendants on trial and also the word day which is that your argument was more pointed and that it was the c e o of your argument wise counsel was in fact because it didn't object to the way that objection was overruled by the court well i believe that the result would have been different had had you know had had this been properly done but but as i'm saying these statements came in and i am arguing that they were besides running a big well the actions of of being with the individuals as the one gentleman's going into the car firing the shots reaching and coming back out and firing the third shot while three are still standing there and then all three together leave concert with the other individuals together they picked the same flight path they did not go different directions i mean he just witnessed this man that he's with execute a taxi cab driver and yet he walks away with him flees away with him runs away  he could have gone differently so i think it's the absence of some of the choices that he could have made that the jury can infer consciousness of guilt in addition the detectives also found the stash of weapons in the flight path of the his own statements to the police trying to distance himself as to why he may have gunshot residue on his hands in addition with his story about being present at the scene earlier firing weapons with and other individuals i think mr flight with them in the direct relation direct area where these weapons were found i think the jury could reasonably infer that involvement and that's what we have judge i mean it's a circumstantial evidence case i won't fled and where they fled i don't believe there was any other indication as even saw them in the house or lose those kinds of matters it's just the type of weapons that were recovered were also indicative of the island's statement in that regard that statement by the spirit what in the record here in the case that he acted any other that he was there he ran and he gave a whole state well i think it also deals with the facts of the then again the spirit court pennsylvania reviewing those issues and also finding that the evidence was sufficient and then moving forward to the district court in federal court riggin reviewing those evidence and find it to be sufficient under the standards see it in jackson so i'm in that regard the facts i think the key the key in johnson the johnson case was the deference to be accorded to the underlying courts in their analysis of the facts in your question your honor i don't think the facts necessarily are that different on this constant case is much stronger you have something more than presence and flight that in johnson you actually you're on i won't i won't disagree with you that the facts and johnson or are stronger but that doesn't mean what what the what the court is saying court you're out of but my position would be if you look at the individuals acting in concert from the beginning before the murder happened during the crime and after and when you do that you'll see that these three individuals w based on that factual scenario that the individuals involved intended were of the i believe isn't that all you have to show and that all you have to file is that also had to find is that the jury thought that these three gentlemen went up together the way they left together the finding of the weapons you add all these points up together and it's hard for any court to set in place of the jury that had no reason why inferences to make in addition to certificate of appeal ability by reference to the petition greg which is always dangerous because your reference and petition and they know your way drawn correct you recognize we can expand our c e o at any time so address it strictly as a determination your honor but in that regard taking that point forward it would be almost impossible for lin the commonwealth to be able to try co defendants together had one of them given a statement in that regard just because by the mere fact if you're honest please i wish is to argue the last issue about the jury instructions that were given by on the trial judge and our position that it is that he gave an improper reasonable doubt instruction to the jury when the the facts were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt should be set aside and i believe his exact language he was talking about two of the witnesses was mr ramirez telling the truth was on terrorists telling the truth these are all things for you to consider but if you're able to take those issues and put them over here on the shelf and still from all the other evidence find the calm office prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of any of these charges the totality don't let a reasonable doubt about one of the issues prevent you from reaching a verdict in this case and were objecting one that he said number one that these were side issues prevent you from reaching a verdict in this case i would say that these were conflicting jury instructions that the judge gave on and that they were against the due process rights of my client if the you know thank you so much