supreme court has not ruled upon the very narrow issue of whether two inconsistent guilty verdicts constitute error however the focus should not be so no because under the general law the screen court has under a pretty and duncan ruled that it is actually jury to make the factual findings regarding what crime analogy or specifically well let me give you an analogy you can have a known disease that has known something but there may be one or two symptoms of that disease that are under the fact that a person not do by rendering the inconsistent verdicts it is also up to the jury to make the faculty findings as to all of the elements of the crime for which a person is could be convicted and that did not occur with seventeen point zero one which costs about the fact that you where you have the same facts which can be more than one crime you have to select one or the other judge also i think said that if enemy be found guilty or not guilty of any or all of the crimes terry why but why i think i might be confusing to the jury but the well the instructions show there the instructions show as given to the jury show either either you stole the property you were there actually person who actually went and took the property from inside the house or inconsistently someone else called the property and you were sold the property under circumstances where you would have known that it was stolen property that he was there beforehand any either of you and caught with it i thought he sold it well yeah that's when he was actually caught with some of the property and the other property was found at the pawn sho that it need not look so narrowly as to the specific issue it looks to the broad law as from the supreme court  she stated and that was found right under underneath that palm print was a muddy boot print and some leaves from outside so one of the prosecution theories was that the petitioner came in through that window open the window and stepped in through the window had passed from the time the victim noticed those things until she contacted the police and when the police came out at that point they said that they were going to test the handprint but it wouldn't you know wasn't good enough to make a positive match you know as in this case when the united states supreme court explicitly reserved judgment on an issue there can be no clearly established federal law this court so held in worth is calderon well let's take for instance the reason the sentencing based the supreme court originally came down with the blakely case and i said this is a state law matter we're not talking about the guidelines and then courts all over the country and he said there's no way you can read vitally and i'll call in the guidelines as they are now administered so they started saying wow we look at blankly and we don't care whether it was exactly the federal thank everything that established drives this an after action so all of federal courts in the country started invalidating the guidelines against after the supreme court and they say that's right but you don't always have to have a perfect match between  that's certainly true and i think the difference in this case however is that the if the very very issue that is before this court was explicitly reserved by the united states i wonder there's anything in blakely saying we're not talking about th a we need to look to a clearly established he's a federal law as determined by the united states supreme court and as mentioned earlier he may state versus powell very explicitly reserve judgment on this is whether or not the inconsistent guilty verdicts can stand and because we're coming again on p b s review and because there's no clearly established law as a term of by the united states supreme court decision in the california courts is entitled sentencing choice is not currently before the court the issue before the court is whether the two inconsistent verdicts can stand under the a d p i suppose if i mean if if we were to determine that inconsistent possibility of you know there may be further appellate action in any case and the state interest is in preserving the convictions were sufficient evidence supports either conviction and again in this case in most cases you have california