the district court in this case crafted its own rule of constitutional law it ignored the last reason state court decision on the issue it cherry picked the record to find that the trial court violated this new rule of constitutional law it applied the wrong it seems to me at this point that neither the trial judge nor the state appellate court answer expressly consider or explain why visible and that's what we have twenty into were visible restraints were necessary visibility is the aspect of rescreening a defendant that most obviously kids rise to prejudice and it isn't otherwise clear to me on this record need for this of all restraints amount to an unreasonable application of care and when you respond if you like i would very much reading the record for me it's insists the judge was making sure that the jury would think he was a dangerous person by allowing us those shackles to be seen it was even the prosecution intelligently offered a sports jacket could have been a sports jacket the shackles why is that for shackles well your honor i think the beginning of that of my answer to that question have to go back to what the holding of back actually is because justified by a state interest but the pick to a particular trial so what i feel like where the district court in particular erred in this case is that it read that holding as stating that the trial must specifically explain why that the shackles must be visible in every case and that is not what the supreme court held in dec what the supreme court held in dec with that physical restraints do not amount to a due process by elation if the trial court in the exercise of its discretion explained on the record why the restraints that had not had been previously used were insufficient and i think in this case we have a very obvious record as to this trial court had concerns about both wilbur and to supporters posing a security or a decorum risk in particular the fact that he got in a physical fistfight with four deputies while he was wearing a stun belt i mean the district court had already tried all of the non visible options that it had at its disposal and it had made a very extensive record here about the ongoing conduct and concerning  statements that will record been making the ongoing conduct from his supporters that could be construed as tampering with the witnesses or threatening the court that after and there are also parts of the record where it makes very clear that there was some concerning behavior going on between wilbur and some of the witnesses after nadal during his testimony the judge sent the jury out and made a note that at one point in his testimony after niles had winked that wilbur and wilbur began laughing i think that it's hard on the paper record to really get a great feel for the entire atmosphere of this trial and i think that in considering and i'm not i don't mean to say that it's possible that the trial court overstepped its boundaries here but the question for a haiti it petition is whether the court of appeal determination that the trial court reasonably looked at the facts of record and applied t and talking to the witnesses after their testimony there had been some threatening statements made to the court the court reporter and i don't know that we ever figured out who these people were but they had been in and out of the courtroom and so the judge sequester the jury because she was she feared for both their safety and the integrity of the trial and so then we also have all these concerning statements that wilber made to the deputies asking very detailed questions about his route into the courtroom about whether he would be taken at the same time every day whether the public had access to that route whether there was a locked door or an unlock door wilber just made it very clear that he had no intention of abiding by what our judicial system requires and i don't think the trial court without order and being concerned i do agree that the some of the trial court statements it's very clear that the trial court had reached the end of its rope by the end of this trial in trying to you know ensure that the trial progressed in a safe and orderly fact fashion i don't disagree with that but the question for the district court here wasn't whether it agreed with the trial court or even whether it agreed with the court of appeals the question for the district court in this matter was whether or not the court of appeals reasonably found an appropriate exercise of discretion here and because an appropriate exercise of discretion is such a wide ranging legal principle indeed even this court on director review won't review won't reverse the trial court's exercise of discretion merely because it disagreed with the opinion the question is did this comport with recognized conventions of legal reasoning and she surely could have it's the fact that she made sure that she made sure that the jury would see the shackles that is concerning to me think that also goes back to the procedural posture of this case of course viewing the senate in shackles has been held to be inherently prejudicial but the supreme court in dec also stated that that can amount to harmless error even on direct review and you know the same the standard for harmless error there is whether or not there there's a reasonable doubt that the error affected the verdict but here on haziest review the standard is much more lenient and it is the petitioners burden to show that this is actually prejudiced and while it's difficult to assess actual prejudice from this kind of a violation where we can't hold a jury and say well what did you think about that i think then what you have to do is look to the strength of the state's case and the state's case in this very strong we had multiple eyewitnesses and yes some of them got up there and walked their statement back on the stand but in wisconsin the  prior inconsistent statement by a witness is considered substantive evidence and so all of the police officers that took the statements from the people got on the stand and testified very clearly particularly  story about but i guess i'm not moving enough there are certain parts are certain weapons that can be manufactured that are revolvers that have what is called a lug on the bottom of the barrel and that's a weight on the barrel that makes the barrel much thicker and makes it resemble a semiautomatic weapon and he also testified that all three of the manufacturers who make revolvers that come in black and chrome colors which is what everyone testified that they saw make these kind of weapons with this love weight on the barrel and i think we also have to keep in mind that this was a very contentious alter cation that happened in a matter of a few seconds where everyone was hyped up and afraid for their lives i don't know that  we can really be all that confidence in everyone's ability to identify whether it was a revolver or a semiautomatic weapon and that for your honor they believe i river reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal  thank you thank you corrupt these appeals there are three issues raised here the st of course steals who has money the court has been discussing with so far with the state and that's the trial court done after the fact that was done i can't remember whether that was during the motion for mistrial or whether that was in the i just i just don't remember which time there was but it it was it certainly reflects the way what's at that's exactly how we were sitting at the time the jury was looking i don't think there was any dispute outer restraints did not say anything about the arm bands when she was trying to justify you know that restraints she was focusing more on the shackles and the  didn't limit its requirements of pages of an explanation to physical restraints its physical restraints is the pope just a jury and there's a reason why there are those two separate additional restraints that they were reasonable with mate without making any attempt to either justify or the fact that they were visible or to explain how the strengths we you know his people have been involved in the work system you know might recognize the media as something dealing with restraints or something dealing with misconduct a jury of audio audio sorry about that thank you just a few things that i'd like to briefly touch on st of all the portion that wilbur has repeatedly relied on here in back is not holding it is very clearly dicta of the supreme court where the supreme court was applying the rule that in order to impose visible shackles a trial court have to make findings about the defendant being dangerous or an escape risk and in the index of the court in dec never made any of those findings in fact the defendant in that had never acted acted out in any way and the court simply imposed those shackles for the cap of the capital penalty phase because he had already been convicted of a crime and so the supreme court in dec when it was reversed things that well you know it doesn't appear that the court understood that this was something that really this was a discretionary decision where it had to make some kind of findings and that is when it that and if it were going to impose additional shackles it didn't say why it needed to use these particular type of course  to deny the petition and the bottom line here is the court of appeal decision was within their it took the rule seriously it looked at the wisconsin cases that imposed the exact same rule is back it looked to the record and it noted that the circuit court had made put a large amount of statements on record noting all of these very concerning statements and acts by wilbur and that that was an appropriate exercise of discretion and even if we would have reached a different requires a federal court to deny the petition and i feel like wilbur and the district court hears so we relied on the trial court and didn't really give any real evaluation to what the court of appeal did with the records that have and had in front of it and finally just briefly the state's case was not weak at all and mr rover has simply glossed over all of the evidence that supported the state's case the state's expert explained how the physical evidence could line up with wilbur being the shooter and we had multiple statements from the police saying that all of the witnesses pointed the finger at wilbur before they walked a statement back on the stand thank you your honors to come and expose counsel in the cases taken under advisement