call them in terms of their of their relative responsibility to the point that one of them is guilty of both a murder and first degree or premeditated attempted murder o first degree attempted mother and the other person is not guilty of attempted of premeditated murder but rather might be guilty of just second degree attempted murder if there is such a differen right and i applaud the courts used the word it's a just because it doesn't just stop but it doesn't answer the question it's the equivalent of somebody in the middle of this appellate process making an admission to somebody else like somebody in jail or something that was more involved and if there would be ordered a new trial that subsequent admission when that's what this really is when when he pleads guilty to manslaughter and when it comes back that subsequent admission could be used against him at the trial there's no question about that i say that doesn't end the issue by any means because there's a lot of explanations the reason why you would confess to somebody in jail could be because you're threatened there could be because you're trying to brag for a number of reasons and in this case the i've got a third grade education most of my stuff i expected to go to trial waited for months to go to trial at the eve of the trial literally five minutes before the trial was to start i was given this this is this timeline that you have five minutes either plead to the the lawyer that i knew didn't spend a lot of time with me he said don't worry about it here the lawyer wrote the words and i said taro not me he said just sign here to do it he didn't know that there's an alfred the north or people going west that could have said that i'm pleading guilty admitting responsibility he and i didn't have a chance to talk to my family or the mom i was sitting and then sitting in the courtroom like i did on other things and so that's why i signed that form and i just did a could say you know could have an impact as to whether or not this prejudice the first time through and i can see that that's why i think why what mike mike mike what i what i was getting at is the evidence still showed that your guy if i understand know there are multiple stab wounds to the back in the back saying my guy didn't do the other ones that's what i'm saying the district court takes that leap of faith and i think it's wrong this is the district court says the evidence showed that there was five stab them in the back and multiple stab wounds to the stomach obviously we need to focus on you've talked about it in connection with the subsequent confession as it were i killed carol in an unreasonable self defense and heat of passion but i'm having difficulty understanding how the shirt reflects on the issue of premeditation where the defendant admits basically he brought a knife to a fist fight and he admitted the stabbing rodriguez the wounds on carroll were consistent with the knife no salvatore and i can see that he is responsible for the attempted murder of self or the question here is a matter of degree the question is tempt the murderer of salvador in the second degree or without the premeditation it's really up first or second  been guilty of second degree attempted murder is what he is but the difference is difference between whether that or whether he's guilty of attempted first degree murder now that's only the difference between everything in this case second degree attempted murders has a maximum of seven years in state prison first degree attempted murder is what he's serving now as a maximum of four ever right is this right is the shirt in the cape premeditation because the shirt was was worn by the person who did they could only conclude he did the main damage is if he's wearing if they conclude he's wearing the shirt and the whole point of why he's the only one with a knife is neither what i saw was a knife and a screwdriver i was there had a crew a screwdriver  the overwhelming evidence that besides a particular weapon involved a person who had the bloody sure planted sure that's the real main culprit that's the person who killed carol that's the person who with premeditation attempted to weapon of choice of which you don't care oh absolutely there's the i don't the story i wouldn't use were misleading i'd say it's subject to different interpretations i mean the jury is never told just because one piece of evidence comes from an expert they must accept that they're told just the opposite they're told don't accept it just because it's an expert accept it only if it makes sense to you and so forth so you know that just because he's an expert and comes in and signs off on it doesn't mean the jury has to do it even in the absence of some construct can come from hurting other expert you look at all the evidence together in this case i think it truly is overwhelming that the main culprit here was the was a pleasure guy and it was tremendous effort that could have established the pledge shirt guy was not my client number a videotape it was him a short time before wearing the plaid sure it's not like him but a very short time clearly a clear link now that's why the state court overrules turned the first time around saying that this was relevant to the verdict they just said it wouldn't have mattered as to as to attempted murder and i agree with him it didn't necessarily matter is the attempted murder but it very much mattered as between second degree attempted murder and first degree attempted murder and that to leave which could be the reasonable response of what you're trying to do under those circumstances to eliminate this intent to kill or was a repeated stabbings and particularly in particular in the terrible parts of the body and that's why i think it's very important  well the law talks about i mean tell me which incorporates chambers or based on chambers that talks about that they gain evidence which i'm not talking about here is is a small piece of that too because the extra part is if you're  one for all from one you always it's off the same sort of stuff so the introduction again evidence you're so you're you're talking about fundamental unfairness so i my view the the standard is not met because it's unreasonable to conclude that these facts would not have  the speaker it was a reason for including that it would not have mattered as to degree and i should say that that the issue of the degree was never addressed by the state court they rendered their opinion subsequently doesn't have relevance to whether or not the state court decision was one reasonable at that time but we do have a very unusual kind of factual pattern of the case here i mean you have two charges they're both going convicted and then one of them is overturned and comes back the other case continues on in its path of the appellate process and while that's going on there is this admission and my view is that the decision took for the purposes in my view i really don't think that it should be part of the considerate thank you very much thank especially in light of the fact that petitioner it needed stabbing salvador rodriguez with a knife here as to salvador rodriguez the victim of the attempted murder it's clear from the evidence at trial including petitioners own testimony that two people attacked him and petitioner therefore either was the person who fatally stabbed the cigarette carol and stabbed rodriguez in the front or was the person that what the jury was faced with in this case was that again petitioner's defense to the attempted murder charge at trial was not that he wasn't a staffer but was that he had justification to stab salvatore rodriguez either self defense or defense of others and and defense counsel did not introduce the evidence that he may have said he was wearing a search law enforcement so that's that's what was not presented at trial and they get it it boils down to who was wearing the why wasn't the evidence what reasons shirt also said that he remembered attacking someone from behind and this would strongly corroborate salvador rodriguez testimony that while he and he several were fighting petitioner he felt  rodriguez so it's certainly evidence which show that salvador or that petitioner was the one that stabbed salvador multiple times in the back but even if it was once in the back with this night we're faced with that admission by mr by the of defense of others the person who is acting in defense of the others would need to have have fear that the person being attacked would suffer great bodily injury and although presumably that may have been what was unreasonably decisions were unreasonable in the light of the circumstances and what this court no no there's an actual innocence rule but i don't know the natural guilt rule you know perhaps not right about what what this court faced with the knows now courts should find that that was not an unreasonable decision by the by the state court again no one because subsequent events proved it correct to that your can you repeat that because because years later new information has come forward to prove that tragedy was was right after all that is the theory that that's certainly it's potentially yes they are because the what stabbing salvador rodriguez the ok evidence limited as it was put some of the gang names in context this year was known as i believe thinking sneaky and it put that into context but most importantly this it was in error to introduce this case evidence because there is plenty of other evidence of identity but still by placed there by pleading not guilty puts that issue atmosphere of identity and so it's the introduction was not i mean you  i can tell you right now as this kind this is attorney general if he's not i'm not allowed to sit on my jury when we have this retrial because he has that opinion but he's doing something now which mr of again never got a chance to do he sitting  last stab for me i'm a little slow on why why the identity of the shooter of the wearer of the shirt is such powerful evidence on the issue of premeditat clearly the heavy clearly the bad guy clearly doing most of the damage on the business end of that knife that's the pleasure guy the other guy was very much a peripheral person participated but at a much lower level i conten powerful shifting the burden of premeditation attempting with with deliberation to evaluate to kill somebody and just barely missing it's a big so you know he stabbed him yes and then whether whether he was at the front or the just but but i guess i'm just not getting the significance of the of the positioning of your client at the time he stabs the admittedly stabs mister