to meet with defense counsel before trial. See Davis, No. 014459, at 11. The November 20, 1979 hearing satisfies Section 2254(d) even though it did not include sworn testimony from live witnesses. In Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 101 S.Ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981) (Sumner I), the Supreme Court explained that Section 2254(d) does not “specify any procedural requirements that must be satisfied for there to be a ‘hearing on the merits of a factual issue,’ other than that the habeas applicant and the state or its agent be parties to the state proceeding and that the state-court determination be evidenced by a ‘written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia.’ ” Id. at 546-47, 101 S.Ct. 764; accord Livingston v. Johnson, 107 F.3d 297, 303 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 880, 118 S.Ct. 204,
holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because  hearing as used in  2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses holding that the evidence presented at a factfinding hearing was sufficient to support the chins finding holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that while the investigatory hearing is not a full evidentiary hearing it nevertheless must be expanded to permit the accused attorney to cross examine witnesses holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case