had they had cameras they had cameras because the victim was indisputably paranoid and had cameras in every room steel shutters that say just because you're paranoid what does it mean that you're so on the first prong of strickland can you point to any supreme court precedent recognizing that the conflict of interest asserted by miss garcia here is a valid basis for and effective assistance  understand this is that ok because she shoots the deceased but he doesn't die right away and he dies in a month and then your client apparently wanted to have private counsel contacted someone and so not having any money said well i i have i can get money from this trust and so the lawyer said why i like to get paid before i accept your case because otherwise she would get the public defender which would be better if the attorney had called and said if the agreement was hey all represent you and i'll take it on a contingency because i know if i get you off maybe then you can get access to all this money but it's not that  the case with the trust necessarily the conflict occurred when because he did that then he made demands on the trust that she never authorize she met it's not clear whether she was she certainly didn't authorize the man for anything other than our own mistress weeks behalf so that changes dramatically the whole mode of evidence with respect to the trust that is should just make inquiries to the trust for him then it doesn't suggest that she killed him because she won the trust money on the other hand as the prosecution argued  reason she killed them was because she wanted that substantial trust money for self and the lawyers immediate demands to turn over all this money to her  certainly plays into that theory on the prosecution's behalf that's a whole different case so with conflict was is that because this man was doing both he was disabled is the record on this is she let me let me ask you a quick question because you can refresh me on this during the criminal trial did the lawyer who's asking the trustee about the about the funds that come into demand was and then in closing argument the prosecutor said look the street this proves mode of the shows that's why should she shot this mess because she wanted that money factor she never got a bonus that there are a lot of other evidence to support the financial motive the fact that she had corrected a misspelling in the trust document so she was aware so it's going to benefit the fact that she threatened to take him down in a way that he's never been tak person prejudice situation so we do analyze the prejudice probably under strickland is that your position yes yes so looking at the prejudice probably that's why i raise the evidence of the other financial motive evidence for the prosecution relied on your case would be a lot more compelling if the only evidence the prosecution relied on was the fact that the attorney who represented her at the criminal trial was the one who reached out and asked for funds to be this person from the trust but that wasn't the situation right well with respect to the trust the only evidence connecting her personally to request on it was one the undisputed request while he was still alive for funds from the trust to pay his nickel expenses and then a second one shortly after he died which she said was foreseen on expenses and there's there's nothing well sort of the sure of the fact that immediately after his death she had an attorney this is the prosecution's theory right you killed him because you had a financial motive and as evidence for that shortly after he passed away you had an attorney immediately reach reach out for trust funds to be dispersed and so that you go on timing  theory right after i don't know if it was after is that there during the time that he was hospitalized she had contacted the trust attorney administrator in order to get a disbursement to pay for his hospital spends it's but that's not all that was  the tourney reached out in order to have the fund the spurs and her theory of the conflict or your theory of the conflict is that the attorney was compromised his represents and patient was compromised because she never authorized him to reach out in would be a lot more compelling if that was the only evidence a financial motive that the prosecution relied on but in this case as i see from the record there was ample other evidence that demonstrate that she had financial motive namely the fact that she knew she was beneficiary the fact that during the argument that they had shortly before she shot him she demanded fifteen thousand dollars to move out the fact  that she threatened to take him down like he's never been taken down before so in light of all the other evidence demonstrating financial motive how do you get past the prejudice prong of strickland especially with at  leds if you look at it from if you're looking at the lens at or from the notion that look she's just after this trust money and then all that makes sense she's a greedy greedy person who will kill to get money but absent that piece absent that piece that we know there's a trust out there we know that yeah she demanded money from them and then they had all kinds of problems it's it doesn't tie it all together in the same way that evidence that you just pointed to doesn't have the same intact and significance because it's not all part of the larger narrative that's tied right at the end by ok give me all that money from the trust and that as i said my riff is the linchpin of the prosecution's case that's what puts all of this into context and that's what all of that is so damaging other than just facts district court made a factual finding that the trust in turn i'm sorry the mr mr wasserman the trial attorney when he made the demand to the trust attorney he did not do it out of his own self interest rather mr during the trial that it was in fact it was in fact her asking the lawyer to go ahead and do it or he was doing it on her behalf to get it for his own behalf essentially to get funds did that ever come out it did not go so that leaves us with the only evidence being that and that maybe not be sufficient resources and would be an enormous waste of resources to duplicate factual findings in the public court for a little benefit so the clear air standard applies i understand your point judge as well it's true that this not come up during the trial but it came up after the trial in a state trial court in a state appellate court in the federal district court and that subject clear air in this court so given that and given the findings that and and which pronk would it be better for us to base our decision because it looks to me like you possibly can see that the court of appeals discussion prejudice does not that at trial petitioner it met under oath that she knew that she was the beneficiary of the trust and it involved a lot of money shortly before the  said she called me about her rights under the trust so when you consider all the weapons together and the state standard is not that there were some lot of took killed but that she killed with the expectation that she would get that money thought that his life was in jeopardy and told someone to that effect to remove what he thought were all the guns from the house and how much beef how weird is that and then somehow there was another gun somewhere and i don't know exactly what how that came about but so were there any contacts with the trust while that was going on oh well let's see i believe that happened the day before she killed him and what my my recollection is and judge when pointed this out and i think this also goes to the prejudice prong was that they had this original argument and he put a  note on the counter and the note was basically an eviction notice and then she went to him and said look if you want me to move out i want fifteen thousand dollars he tells her forget it and then the shooting occurs in very close proximity to those events if i'm correct you're correct and if you want to offer five thousand and fifteen is what i need or i'm going to take it down like you've never been taken down before and i believe that chaka all right then this matter will stand submitted thank you both for your argument