larry probably in a untenable catch twenty two position to make things even better and we actually have one with a catch twenty two because twenty two your honor is this one of the factors for american style conflict claim the adequacy of the inquiry when this happens when there's actually two motions to hearings on motions to relieve an affidavit from counsel extensive evidence that there's a toxic and extreme conflict between many conflicts between these people others understatement conclusionary statement we can't get along together well you know first of all when you look at irreconcilable conflict the fact that the whole nature of the inquiry is is counsel and client engage in and if there's any case that at that exemplifies lies this one because they're directly contrary to the findings of the court protests with judge sign you're out of the judge find it you know he's harried he gets the findings of fact he doesn't expect that the state's going to draft them in a manner inconsistent with these are all fine things but the case law is pretty clear that the oral findings govern those written findings of fact are very they just do not accurately reflect the record plain and simple this is what the court found afternoon that you're hearing this is prisoner and a writ of habeas corpus subjectively feels that he has not been well attended by his counsel and thinks that there's an irreconcilable conflict this is a constitutional error not to appoint dewey when he says that this is what he said number two i think that this will be on the public defender's office wasn't dangerous waters certain entrances can be drawn from what was going on in this case in the case and a relationship or lack thereof of mr doing what was said on not at the various people i learn the whole story that what really happened here is important and also what's important is we happen to look at this from the perspective of mr plump the objective person mr family's perspective physician what would he think what happened here is that really what actually happened the last six information that's highly suspicious maybe that we don't learn that maybe information wasn't leaked until six years later which right out the back tells the inquiry was adequate at the trial court level because this was never fleshed out secondly what else do we have what we have the whole problem with the first attorney going to work for the g eight and finally testifies that the da now you have to remember tom of those arrested in april making ninety one he doesn't the whole attempt to get removed relief doesn't happen until a year later trial doesn't occur until september the first ago and then he goes to work for the d a what else does he have is a reasonable basis for why he lost faith well let's look at steve's tool one of the acts of a record and here we have the investigator for the watch the county public defender's office and what it promised them places i lost faith in and because they didn't do any investigation in my case well what does mr o'brien the investigator say well he says i'm the invest this lump used to one of the acts of a record and this is the investigator testifying and then the question is are you aware of it in for investigation would do that your client i mean that's going to develop this trust what other things we have and we have the last pale order which is the final straw for plumbing or the first judge did in fact in our bail order his gregory's second successor client loses the bail order that we can point to for why family lost faith in his attorney and then we have and we have strong dream evidence in this record that there was a complete breakdown of the attorney client relationship both the attorney and mr flannelly said we don't trust each defenders are good lawyers to financial economic policy concerns and he does this clearly on the record those are my reasons for doing it i'm not even going to consider appointing to that's the counsel and we know from the case all the both of those two reasons are wrong morning my name is fictional z m from the attorney general's office in las vegas from my perspective the central issue in this case is that mr plumlee from the very beginning sabotaged his own defense investigator took the stand the testimony that was to do this showed that mr plumlee repeatedly from the very beginning of the representation lied about the most fundamental issues that the defense attorneys needed to craft a defense in this case there may have been then a conflict between the attorney and the client but to the extent that there was a conflict it was created by mr plum of all it encourages as a policy issue it encourages manipulation any time a defendant feels that the case isn't going his way he simply will invent some kind of conflict by not cooperating with his lawyer that will allow criminal defendants with appointed counsel in which this case was simply to manipulate the system repeatedly and ultimately most serious cases that are bad for the defense would never end up going to trial  because you get into the you get into that sort of circle where you're going through attorney after attorney when you go through all the defense attorneys in the county i don't know what the court's supposed to you would also point out well but that happens from time to time when we see it and record the record from the june ninth one thousand nine hundred two hearing on this issue seems to indicate actually that they did maintain a working relationship probably did maintain one with his attorney because the court he was very active in thing in the record when finally testified at one nine hundred ninety seven hearing plumlee years later five six years later after the trial plainly maintained the attitude i'm paraphrasing but he maintained the attitude that through his attorneys i'm going to tell you what i think you need to know i'm going to i'm going to lie to you but i'm going to tell you what i think you know and you better damn well represent me somehow and do an investigation somehow in spite of the fact that i am only going to tell you what you need to know the court about a week and a half ago i don't know exactly what the term is you expanded the are you requested the entire transcript of what had originally started and one thirty nine of the one nine hundred ninety seven hearing this is not in the car that was provided by the public defender but you have this because you requested this i think by minute order on page fifty four this the defendant one point in time says all mr ellison needed to know was i did not commit the murder if mr allison had done in the investigation it would have showed everything else what he says on this page and around  around after this page is that he was going to tell the attorneys what he thought that he did know was going to answer their questions he was simply going to tell them what he thought they needed to know and then they needed to go out and somehow investigate the case and i would suggest to you that that's what created the conflict in this case that he wasn't cooperating was hiding information the lawyer in the investigator testified that he changed he had eight or nine different versions of the case and sort of relevant fact back and say there are some problems with what you're telling us he would then change a story they would go out investigate they'd come back and they'd say to him there are holes in your story he'd give them another version that was the quality of the relationship i've never the lower just record i would go to what the highest state court did what the nevada supreme court said in their order was very simply the same thing that they had always said when they dealt with the issue on direct appeal they repeated that and the  case and that was that plumlee never showed that there was a conflict he sort of suspected one he's beat around the bush but when push came to shove and he got all these hearings and he never proved facts i think it has to be a i think the reasonable person standard has to apply under those controlling cases not a reasonable person believe the leaks came out of the defender's off nine this theory on this lake first i point out there was never any evidence put on as to the source of this supposedly at one point in time the judge at one of these hearings and here fifty nine the judge is questioning mr plum plumlee takes the same more of his theory that of all these leaks and everybody's talking to these files apparently the allegation is going through the sister that seem to be the story he turns this on the judge in the and defendant says i believe he's talking to the judge he says i believe you spoke to my sister this past week you were going into the specifics about my case the exact same argument the same thing he used shelly o'neil oh now he's accusing the judge of it the judge says i did not the defendant says no your sister called she complained your sister called i advised mr gregory the defense attorney she complained about what was happening or not happening with a public funders case i advised her sister i could not  case with her she should contact john morrow that's up to the public defender what to do about it so the plan then this friend says it will correct that's what i was talking about the point is mr plumlee has this argument in his mind he wants to i don't remember how but he did implicate them the problem with plumlee is he did not take notice lane's advice and avoid having a fool for a client when you represent yourself he was trying to craft was told repeatedly by mills lane you know don't you know for in the freshest stuff before the freddy campus this is going to work you're going up against these lawyers that this guy thought he knew more than the judge who knew more than the lawyers he was going to tell them what they thought they needed to know and they'd better damn well go out and do something with it he wasn't going to give me more and he was going to lie to them and he was going to change his story repeatedly as you know i don't easy case to defend for these it's one of the first times in my life i've ever felt bad for a defense attorney i have to admit but they had a difficult client to put it mildly counsel the bottom line he ernie is that we have a murder trial i've never seen a murder trial where someone represented by counsel and the counsel did not want to represent him that's clear absolutely clear they did not want to represent him and it seems to me even in that circumstance the court has to appoint other counsel i appreciate the guy pretty your concern and i think it's a valid concern in the general kind of case the difficulty in this specific case is that to the extent there was a there was stress and that relationship was caused by plumlee i don't think it matters  bottom line who caused it here we are the public defenders is we don't want to represent this guy but they did represent him they did the investigation when they were out how much investigation did you do the attorney w got a conflict when we have there is no evidence here that there was a complete breakdown in communication there's no evidence that the washoe county public defender abandoned their client and stopped working on the case the evidence in that in hearing was they continued to work on the case didn't like this guy but of course there's no right to a meaningful relationship with your client they may have been at each other's throats but they communicated they put on the defense they continued to work for him when they were appointed is moving forward with all this it is you know the day of trial this is what are close to trial and gregory says he doesn't trust us and frankly judge i don't trust a relationship i have with mr pollin when i feel very uncomfortable talking one on one because of certain things that have counsel and then the question is and you've read this stuff and you have the same concerns i think we do that the defender at the public defender that won in such a terrible position because it's forced to go either way stand by cancer counsel to the person because there's nothing in the record there is there is evidence in the in the record that you just read from that they don't like each other there's a lot of stress and there was a lot of tension but there's no evidence in the record of a breakdown in communication or that the public defender's office cease doing their duty to create a defense for mr plumlee and in fact the evidence in the transcript is they did their duty they did the investigation every single lead he gave them they investigated they didn't like him absolutely but you don't have to like your client you simply have to do your duty to defend him you have to communicate with them and they did that that was done and that's  key issue here except that they didn't represent i mean that they were relieved of their represent they were relieved to hear all that mess that they were relieved at his insistence i would point something else out here that's really interesting there was a forever can this in addition to judge lying repeatedly telling them you were going the wrong way when they did the formal for at a canvas there's no challenge in front of this court right now to the formal for at a canvas it was a formal freida canvass mr plumlee was told repeatedly about the shortcomings of this theory that he wanted to represent himself he was insistent on it the issue here is because this case lies at the intersection in my view between fred and other versus sullivan in the line of cases dealing with a complete breakdown because there is no allegation that the fred a canvas was bad he has to show objectively under the reasonable person standard that there was a conflict not caused by himself i can't i don't have it right in front of me your honor literally ruth yes or no and secondly it's in the it's in the kyler and shell line of cases secondly it's based on the policy argument that a defendant cannot be allowed to manipulate the system to the point where he creates the issue by lying to his attorney repeated later and then comes in and says we have a bad relationship well yeah you may but the key issue here is the public defender didn't point to the highest court and what the nevada supreme court said was you simply have not proved that there was a conflict sufficient to require the court under the sixth amendment to appoint  you new counsel and that is the order under twenty two fifty four g that was objective lee reasonable under u s supreme court rulings under the sixth amendment and under under the cases for the for the twenty two fit opposing counsel and never has been a defense attorney if you think there's something unusual about your client telling you something that doesn't prove to be true after investigation that is certainly the average criminal defendant right there and he might be a little lower than fifty but in my experience very seldom does the defense and defense tell the whole truth it's like in fact you are afraid to ask him did you do it