unreliable for two reasons that i will like to discuss today first he was visibly restraint without just if occasion and second his counsel labored under a conflict of interest that adversely impacted their performance stake or decisions on these matters are not reliable he was never hostile to his attorneys and yet the court placed him places stumbled on him for the entire duration of the trial he even had to go up to the stand and testify with the stumbled on there were an awful lot of witnesses who said it was not visible but they left court reporter two police officers prosecutor priests said they never saw unders close but that hearing was six years after the trial it it's hard deputies to remember a particular trial and what about it is a state court factual finding correct bet is that there was a trial court's finding that's not the court of appeals finding however and we have a videotape and a picture  just you know obviously we owe a lot of deference and what did the court of appeal say that did not amount to a finding i mean i thought the state court said these were not visible the court of appeals the latest decision on the merits that replaces a trial court's decision actually says with the finding that the made was that there was a compelling need and they focused on things like the need for the restraints the  small small courtroom that the tension in a courtroom the nature of his crimes which is not a valid determination it is not an individual's finding specific to this defendant so the court of appeals never actually said and we find of these restraints  trial court's findings and then may have made their finding about compelling need well it sounds like you still have a state court finding that's undisturbed that it was not visible and we ask that you find that finding as an unreasonable determination of fact because you can see the photographs you can see the video from the trial and you can see the stone belt the box visible moreover in the record we have a that in the record the sixty one the dash twelve sixty six ninety eight i did look at the pool t v coverage that you asked us to look at and i think it's fair to say that that there are at least two conclusions or obligation or observations you can draw from that first off if that's what you're relying upon least in part to say that this was an reasonable the type yes you can see there's something protruding from his back kid no question about that but i don't know how long this trial lasted but it's it's an exceptionally short period of time appearing on that t v that you could see that there was anything unusual about him at all that's observation number one observation number two is you keep saying you could see this done belt box when you append those words to the box it's linguistically correct you can see something that is of a square shape that sticking a little bit out of his out of his back how anybody would have any idea one that was a stun belt and to thereby draw this adverse in front of this guy's read must be really dangerous so he probably did it really is seems to me an incredible stretch to make so i asked to i look at what you ask for so your reaction to those observations would be useful well your honor the videotape only did capture a very short moment but the jury was there in this incredibly small claustrophobic courtroom he was not wandering around when the jury is there but he's in the courtroom by the time the jury is brought in at least the way trials normally work and he still sitting there when the jury is let out so all the only time unless you correct me that they saw him when they could even see his back was when he got up to give his sworn statement second of all there's a lot made of he is he's sitting up forward and he can't touch the back his back to the back of his seat it's i that the pool coverage clearly refutes that what you see on the pool coverage is a person that might be slouching a little bit but his back is absolutely right up against the back of the chair so how even when you combine that somebody would jesus odd going on here and therefore it must be a stun belt that i would submit ninety nine percent of people don't even know exist is seems to me to be hard to understand so how do you respond  a couple of reasons your honor in this particular courtroom the way the jury was set up his profile was mere feet away from the jury box for the entire two weeks trial so even though they could see the entirety of his back only for a brief time while he walked to the to testify on his behalf but during trial they could see his profile and the patrician on his back for the entire duration that's in the post conviction here you can see photos of the courtroom it's interesting because i guess i've never seen a courtroom where anybody other than the government was closest to the jury box that's the way the courtroom is laid out then that's a part of the testimony and second again as if you have any pictures of what a juror would see from the side there are some pictures and post conviction hearing we can double check their pictures of the courtroom and the way it was laid out and as far as they want to asking us just look at the pool coverage we did that so is or that doesn't include any view from the side right that there's not but there is so how is that how is that an unreasonably terminations by the state if we don't even have a picture of what it looks like from the side and picture of the jury room or th care about the jury room i care about the guy the guy that has this you say something protruding out that's really obvious and therefore they know it's a stun belt well it's the photo from the pool coverage and i would like to clarify that the pool coverage was not necessarily done during trial during the commission hearing one of the deputy said to get their camera shots during motions that's just in many of robert webber on documents sixty one dash sixteen pages in one's ear one one so his demeanor his reactions may have been very different when the jury is not in the room and the deputy is not necessarily holding the transmitter as closely i agree it may have been but how do we know that well your honor under the circumstances of this particular trial where the jury had an opportunity to observe him in profile where they know the nature of the trial that thing on his back could not be anything other than the restraint and there were additional witnesses that did testify and submitted a few divots in the support of the post conviction petition that they could see it that they could see the outline and i certainly could see the remote past missing the import of my questions i'm not questioning whether they saw the outline of something on the back based on the pool coverage i'm assuming that they probably did who even knows what a stun belt is let alone knowing that protrude it was a stun belt not only his his own relatives didn't know what that was on his back but they could see that as some type of physical restraint no no they could see there was something on his back they couldn't see that it was a physical restraint so given that all the supreme court language talks about something that that is obvious is a restraint how do you get over the hurdle that it's something on his back we don't know what it is we don't know that is a stun belt we don't know that is a restraint the relative justify that his movements were restricted it's not just restraint and the supreme court to doesn't just talk about visible restraints the deck their opinion and duck relies on three fundamental principles of law one is the presumption of in a sense for which visible restraints are important but the second one to discussing things with his lawyer and i guess the eighth amendment forget what i mean you had a separate eighth amendment theory so you're kind of mixing those together just in what you just said jack as to the due process stack requires the restraints to be visible we had a case mendoza where we said you know jack referred six times to the fact that the restraint has to be visible that's not a requirement we can overlook on hey vs and it seems like you know you may have the same problem here well before those opinion couple of months before that this court issued united states versus his argument was well come on people know that he's probably got some kind of leg restraints under their something but they weren't visible and on hey vs you know how constrained we are and hey vs one hey vs we could not sort of you know extended to a situation where they can't see it but maybe they could figure it out and it seems like we're kind of in the same situation here as to your due process calling well your honor in this case this case is different because in those that the court actually went out of its way to make sure that those restraints are not visible and those are the defendant testified on shackled without any restraints whatsoever leonard had to testify with the stumbled on and part of his claim is that he had to cut cut his statement short because it was so uncomfortable he was so nervous he could not focus on what was going on in the courtroom because he was concerned that the moment he could get zapped with fifty thousand volts of electricity what's the support him this restraint having adversely impact his ability to give the son torn statement because we have the transcript of his horn statement and it simply and at what appears to be a normal conclusion testified to post conviction hearing and what he testified to was that he had to cut it short because he was and he was so uncomfortable with the stumbled and it's open maybe a better way to say it is it is there anything that cooperates that because that does not appear to be consistent with her cooperated by the transcript of the proceeding well that's the best evidence of what we have done was his his statement his preparation  perception but i also urge you to look at the second this second portion of the analysis and duck the talks about the inherently prejudicial effect of physical restraints not necessarily visible restraints that talks perceived as aggressive he will be electrocuted will likely fall to the floor you're in there himself there it was not a consent he was explicitly told that even if you don't sign it will put one on you anyway are two components to the conflict of interest in this case the ongoing civil suit and close relationship of consulate matters family first leonard and his brothers corp were co defendants in the wrongful death civil lawsuit bro corporation but not leonard in the civil suit that lawsuit was based on identical facts and this created an unconstitutional conflict because this conflict and firstly affected clients investigation consuls investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence the theory of liability as i understand it in the two civil suits i think for both but please correct me if mistaken was simply that leonard had driven the company van to the scene of the eventual murder is that correct yes your honor in addition he was charged with kidnapping by using the van to block the exit from but the basis for holding the company liable was simply that they had allowed him to use a span so yes i don't see how testimony that his brother a little him as a boss or that he had an emotionally distant upbringing or something how that at all is adverse to the company's interest in that suit it just seems to be utterly irrelevant to the company's liability in that suit and so why is there a is the perceived ability if the company if the shareholders who also happen to be his brothers could foresee this happening then the company could be held liable it overlaps with mitigation counsel in the capital punishment case has a duty to present mitigation the puts in context how this person who is on trial developed how he led his life that committee him made him commit this crime that serious the brother should have known it was foreseeable to the brother that when they let him use the van that day that he might go off and and do what he did to the victim the theory here is that if they had presented competent mitigation the put his entire life in childhood in context as mitigation counsel is obligated to do that evidence could be used by opposing counsel in the civil suit to argue it was forseeable to the shareholders just seems like a real stretch i mean if we look at the particular evidence ok the brother sort of let's just put it in terms favorable to you the brother belittles him as a boss he felt like the blache black sheep of the family his parents were emotionally distant how does that matter to whether the company or the brother shouldn't loan him a van on a particular afternoon  the death case and we're trying to figure out how those two fit together seem to fit together if counsel had presented the mitigation evidence that they didn't actually investigate but had the investigated and presented this evidence that leonard had this volatile relationship with flick that the brothers knew about it because steve leonard we have notes from the investigator saying he knew don flick from the day she was born here for th should have let him drive a van because maybe at night in the middle of an idea is going to go over on or off the road and the murder well that would be the opposing counsel's argument in the civil suit that the but the the opposing counsel even make that argument here was the conflict a part of the theory advanced in the civil case the civil case did not against the corporation did not get developed because the corporation filed in the answer and letter defaulted because he was per se in that suit so that those arguments did not get developed the state's dismissed as when did the terminations of that case occur relative to the proceedings in the case the estates dismissed their suit after he was found guilty and the jury recommended death and that's an erroneous determination of fact by the state court because they said the suit was dismissed before trial here we have a case of concurrent ongoing representation could you speak a little bit because i think it if it affects not only is our game maker now but we're going to hear about it again later the large promise of these arguments is that there were things that should have been investigated and worked and had they been investigated there was relevant mitigation evidence that would have been presented it appears as if almost if not all of that evidence was in fact presented in one form or the other so tell us exactly what it was that this evidence that this investigation would have revealed that simply wasn't presented in any way shape or form by any of the witnesses in the case that r reconcile with dawn this man performer acquittance shows up shows up at his door and that's what made him snap and that theory of mitigation was never developed and nothing about this was presented and that is mitigating that she had a relationship with ryan grease i think or gripes powers that mitigating that would have put his crime in context it's not just a he thinks it's not just a friend who was supposed to head over to their house and made a phone call to ryan greece saying don't come over or i'm not heading over to your place so he knew that the phone call immediately preceded this person showing up at the limited emotional bringing this kind of stunted motional development he didn't know how to handle jealousy how to handle rejection or how to express love and that's what led him to commit the crime and his brothers who owned the corporation would have known all about it they would have been part of his development you do other death cases this is my first argument in this court have you been involved another one just briefly ok the reason that i'm asking i'm not trying to put you on the spot on that you're doing fine i think it would be safe to say at least the ones that i've seen that leonard probably had the best and most normal upbringing of any defendant i've ever seen in a death case where there is a question about presentation of mitigating evidence by his or her attorney so i was going to ask you if  that seemed to be a fair observation or not but if you don't know that's why i'm not qualified to make that observation but fair enough if given his lack of prior record i would say that gives more credence to the argument that his sentence grade maybe a dozen maybe a dozen and so let me sort of develop a question for you that i'd like to get your reaction to one of the things that i get the sense that you say should have been either developed because it wasn't or better developed if it was side that he was singled out to go to a public school instead of procul school the question that that brings to mind is i just wonder it seems it seems as likely as not that had that actually been a theory that was advanced by the defense counsel in this case that would have had such an overwhelmingly negative reaction by the jury that it actually would have hurt more than it helped though i'm interested in your reaction to that the theory that he was singled out the think this theory that one of the reasons why he killed his girlfriend was that he was forced to go to a public school instead of private school well your honor that's just one element of it but very rich background that is an element so i'm just saying yeah maybe that you're kind you're thinking after the fact that should have been presented i'm just raising the question of whether wouldn't have actually been worse in which case it's really just a strategic decision by coun public or private school does not on the record but what's in the record is their request investigate all good things possible this will be focused on if you investigate only the good things you don't get a complete picture of his background you cannot present complete mitigation to make a strategic decision about presenting mitigation because you don't know what's out there also in almost all of these cases the heaviest counselor or able to identify something a witness that says they were never talked to and that this is the information that only they had in the council wouldn't know if they hadn't talked to a psychiatrist or a family member or something like that guess in this case we don't really know what the attorney did or did not know about some of these  upbringing issues do we know that one of the attorneys was a close family friend in could have been a mitigation witness which is another reason why he should not have taken on that we are here this representation answering the question by moving on to something else do we do we have anything from the attorneys that said you didn't know that i've kind of screwed up here oh if i had known that i would have made that to be part of our mitigation case nor your honor but does not determine if we can objectively look at what they did and did not investigate and concluded this was not a strategic decision warden contended that there was a default since he was presented on a post conviction as opposed to direct appeal it would seem to be a direct appeal claim however despite all  that the trial court on post conviction evaluated the shackling claim and denied it on post conviction it was appealed to the first district court of appeals who reversed and said have a factual hearing so by the time the shackling claim gets back to the post conviction trial court there's a full evident examples first of all mr leonard sr testified during post conviction proceedings and said i saw a five by five inch square on his electrical restraint type belt so the trial court then took that fact that the sister an unknown five a five inch square on her brother's back as he walked up in this exactly right the only time that as far as we can tell in the record where the jury and says is again the the visibility at all it's a juror issue you have to determine it visible to the jury as opposed to anybody else  that very well may be the case but nevertheless i think that's where you would come to the conclusion that the only time the jury would have been able to have a direct view of this unknown five to five inch square was when mr leonard was walking up to the stand for the unsworn statement and then presumably for a little time as he turned to sit back that they could see it the entire time from the side when he's sitting in the chair do you have a response to that that's not in evidence that i believe that would be petitioners  evaluation of speculation based on the circumstances the case but that is not a state court finding fact the state court finding a  fact was that if the the restraint as a restraint was not visible and once that dispositive fact is made and then this court does a meri court relied on an air heart case from the sixth circuit in two thousand and nine and earhart build on the mendoza case where you have the dispositive finding of fact finding a necessity before state courts could require the petitioner to wear a belt if the stun belt was not visible then there is not a violation of clearly established federal law sufficient to grant writ which is exactly what you said result that the district court promptly denied the writ to get a little bit technical about this finding of fact process the trial court did an evidentiary hearing and made findings fact state post conviction your time on post conviction and it's of merits adjudication now the trial court actually made three findings in general the first was a mix question of law and fact to the extent to the effect that the restraint device even though it there was no prior hearing at the trial level the post conviction court determined that the restraint was properly used that because of factors in the case in issues of court and security that's kind of a mix question of law in fact the other two findings are really pure fact findings the one most responsive being that the restraint was not visible in the trial court post conviction  al court also made a specific finding that this device did not interfere with mr leonard's ability to interact or communicate with his  counsel in that particular finding of fact goes to the sixth amendment question the lack of visibility i believe is the fifth amendment question and then also under the the sixth amendment question there is i think truly a lack of clearly established federal law relative to the question of however the state may or may not somehow interfere with the defense ability to communicate with his attorneys the existing precedent your honor deals directly with in cases where a trial court his forbid the defendant to speak with a defense attorney and vice versa i believe there was one case and this is on the sixth amendment issue in this just purely academic discussion the sixth amendment issue of the interference question the cases that seem to be in existence refer to a trial judge's preclusion of communication just don't talk to your attorney when there was that was done on a i can't open overnight basis i believe there was a court determined that in fact was a sixth amendment violation when a trial court for bid the defendant from communicating was with his attorney during a fifteen minute break and i believe the defendant was on the stand the court in that case determined there was no interference that implicated the sixth amendment that's just actually somewhat of a side issue but the point on making is is that although on the the shackling per se there's a body of case law particularly out of this court the adams the the air heart and the mendoza that i believe would the court would have to assess in adjudicating this claim there is no similar body of law anywhere relative to use of restraints and interfering with the defendant's ability to participate in the trial and i think that would have an  because there frankly to the warden's understanding your honor there is no body of the law to apply to this sixth amendment question  said the trial court made these three findings one of them being a mix question of law in fact the court of appeals and keep in mind when mr leonard appealed the adjudication the post conviction adjudication to the court of appeals mr leonard obviously is challenging everything he's challenging law he's challenging the facts and then the matter goes to the first district  the way the first district court of appeals wrote their opinion they resided the leonards challenges in context of the facts as found by the trial court but it was more of somewhat in the nature of how a magistrate would report to the judge say here's what here's what they are saying what the court of be and the appendix page id fifty to sixty one it's a paragraph sixteen the court of appeals specifically said we find that the trial court properly determined that the security device could have been used that it was a proper or even that the real rationale for using the device was proper what th the court of appeals didn't exactly say this and that specifically the court of appeals there's nothing in the court of appeals opinion this specifically says we find the restraints were not visible now appeals did not reject that finding of fact second of all both the magistrate judge and the district judge in determining what was important for adjudication o a context and specifically the  the authority to do so from the magistrate judge's perspective was derived from bass quiz first is bradshaw which is a case of this court three forty five said appendix one o four at page seven of the opinion specifically footnote one and footnote one as interrupting i've lost complete track of what point are you trying to make here what is the point of all this the point the point of what i'm just saying here is your honor is that the trial court would submit that the district court in a magistrate judge properly denied the writ on this conflict claim specifically because the case long this is associated with this conflict of interest claim the facts are normally very much related to the criminal context itself where a defense counsel is representing other defendants in a usual best guys and you know involved in some criminal activity conspiracy  somebody is representing both that body of law is not a doctrine of loyalty it's a doctrine of  interfering with a defendant's proper representation because the attorney is attempting to protect a nother defendant the point that i'm making is your honor is that there is no body of case law that in generically speaks to a subjective feeling which is what is alleged in this case is that the allegation is the trial defense attorneys subjectively would have divided loyalty first of all there's nobody go beyond that i mean they say that the family is paying i think it was strong's legal fees and so that he would well maybe i don't know maybe that does go to your point that he would be reluctant to make them look bad is that what you're getting at that is a subjective allegation what about the you know the two pending civil cases the civil cases i believe in the believe the record would bear this out is that the company was dismissed out there out they were presumably on summary judgment but opposing counsel has said that was after the trial in this criminal case if in fact that's the case it doesn't change any of valuation because in context of the case where the only connection with the so called family business in the crime would be the defendant driving the van that's not what his argument shoes argument that the court made a mistake saying that it was under misunderstanding thinking that company got dismissed before the trial when i was actually after the trial so you have to concede i would think that if there was something inevitable about the position they were going to take and be have the company and this defendant that could be an actual conflict write your own i would disagree really i would disagree for two reasons first of all legally there's no body of case law that deals with this type of subjective issue of a just common sense i'm not saying honor i'm just saying that the body of case law on this point is defendant specific an attorney representing that there isn't a case that says that when it's not representing two defendants one as representing somebody else in a civil case and somebody else in a criminal case that even though there's there's a completely conflicting interest between the two that's ok because there's no cases says that it you're on  saying is there is no body of case law that addresses that issue is it constitutional matter you might be demanding a little more specificity in terms of what is relevant supreme court process for  really was something that they should have done it didn't do or didn't do well you know was there an actual conflict i mean his or was there prejudice from the if we assume there about this prejudice assume there is a c even though you say we don't have any cases but you're near real argument is that even if there was wasn't a prejudice here right there descriptors well so that's going right to her argument so that to be that be kind of fun respond to her argument that there was prejudice there was no prejudice because as the district court concluded the prejudice alleged by leonard said first thing that he says that you're skipping over is that they didn't do an adequate investigation and that's a pretty common argument in every mitigation case so they say they didn't investigate to find out that there were some problems with  family either because they they were in cabinet or they didn't want to know because they represent the company so that's the first thing you have to address this is the allegation this is your opportunity to respond that are you yes the response is that  support on the question of prejudice was cumulative it was the same stuff it was the same stuff you don't want to address the investigation well it was presented the the big issue for the president as evidence so to speak was was this psychologist dr that spoke of the coldness of the family magistrate judge and the district judge said well that's what was presented during mitigation there was a psychologist that testified during mitigation to the effect that the family was less than nurturing and of course then the question is how mitigating is that anyway but there was in fact evidence at the trial from a psychologist that the family was less than nurturing that the father was was rigid militaristic the post conviction evidence from this psychologist was the same stuff so as the district judge in the magistrate judge determined that there was no there is no evidence of prejudice on the conflict klein because the supposedly new mitigation evidence was the same as what in fact was presented at trial so there's no prejudice because there's no there's not there's nothing evident that was a mid that could have been pursued had this hypothetical conflict not been present so that's that's the response that there's no prejudice because the new evidence is the same as the old evidence in the lawsuit there an employer would necessarily say that an employee a was off on a lark of his own that even though many individual might have had company property that he was off on a lark of his own there's really not in that type of that type of position you're simply trying to distance your employer would be trying to distance distance himself from the employee and say whatever happened to whatever went on we don't know we've got nothing to do with it and that in and of itself really would have no conflict with the defense that was presented by mr leonard which he actually was successful  beat two attempted murder charges and got the rate broken down from a rape charge to an attempted rape and it was these defense attorneys did that so  these are all factors that suggest that the district court properly concluded that the state court properly rejected the the conflict claim and i've got nothing further to add unless the court has questions one quick question sort of the flip side of the question i asked ms wood about the quality of the mitigation evidence that's that they claim should have been presented and wasn't the flipside of that is whether this is really one of the worst of the worst claims that would generally engender the death penalty and again i would say of all the ones i've had this is probably one of the more a knock us murders if there is such a thing in terms of it being death eligible to begin with whether i'm right or wrong about that that seems to me if i'm right to then have a direct relationship to how important mitigation was a lot of times we would say well ok you could have done this you could have done that but the strength of guilt and the strength of the aggregators was still strong here that really would have made any difference i don't see that we could if we were if we wanted to i don't see that we could say that here because no question that he murdered or maybe occurred during the course of an attempted rape maybe didn't shoot the three times in the head but generally a murder of a girlfriend or a spouse because you're jealous or mad doesn't engender the death penalty your honor  that's a good point and my response to that is this same jury that basically acquitted mr leonard of three charges the same jury that recommended  acquitted mr leonard of two counts of attempted murder shooting through the door they found flown assault lesser included the same jury that had  charge of rape but found a lesser included of attempted rape that same jury recommended death so i think that that while you have a very good question we have an answer to the question in the very fact that this same jury that cut mr leonard some breaks nevertheless recommended death tempted rape was one of the aggravators right yeah it's rape yeah it's a felony murder rape or attempted you know said rape or attempt so in the forensic evidence the rape war was now and that she's handcuffed but that she has bruises from them because she his characterization of it was voluntary but it's mr leonard themself that injects the sexual encounter into this these set of facts as you've pointed out but it's the same jury or hundreds the same jury didn't do here they didn't know that theory would really get somewhere just there was an alternative theory out can have an alternative theory no matter how fanciful or unbelievable and then you don't have to show project just that there was a conflict it's a requirement of actual conflict but not prejudice so here the actual conflict was there was a diversion theory as mr mayor said the core would be about the ability of the wave the conflict because mr lynn it was a question about whether he knew of the conflict and would relinquish any concerns then on my have so he quoted directly made the determination that i'm not aware of anything like that in a record year ok well record is what it is so we'll look back again well you know another problem you have is it seems like the theory that you're saying they should have that leonard felt personally inadequate that he grew up in a rigid household emotions just weren't allowed but he didn't connect how that explained the crimes he didn't put anything in context and that was because the trial attorneys didn't give him the information necessary to make that connection really is that connection because it doesn't jump out of me it was the crime of passion that he didn't know how to deal with the stress of  someone showing up at the door while he's trying to reconcile with his girlfriend they showed up at the door while he was attempting to rape or is how this case comes to us you're here always denied it he doesn't mediately turn himself so that's right i mean he's i mean is the rape attempted rape finding something we somehow set aside here well we did contest the sufficiency of the evidence and that charge because he always maintained that he never forced himself on her he always when you're arguing now would be derivative of that argument and that's a pretty tough argument that jackson claim on this evidence at this stage of the proceedings well your honor if i may or director attention to adams or bradshaw dispositive here in adams adams had a hearing on why in his case it was appropriate to have to overstrained place on him and that decision was justified by factors specific to adams his prior justified the question whether it was a visible those are two different questions well in this case you cannot defer to the state courts finding because it was visible because on these facts that's an unreasonable termination of fact judgment key given his sister said she didn't recognize it as a stun belt at the time we were forced to say the state court couldn't agree with that testimony along with the testimony of five other people who were there but was it reasonable in light of the very small and unusually laid out courtroom the prosecutor i doublechecked in answer to judge mckeague question what did the prosecutor say about the layout of the courtroom he said the prosecution was facing the jury and they could see this side of the defense table that's sixty one dutch sixteen page eight hundred ninety one turn it was a very small courtroom and they could see his profile the whole time for two weeks not just when he got up to testify and finally it's not a subjective feeling they were talking about the ohio supreme court says that if two co defendants ordered to defend is that the cause was representing the duty of loyalty is owed to the corporation is the corporation that comes first in some ways that's worse than representing multiple criminal defendants because one of them is prioritized by the governing supreme court law and second that there is no common defense to present because these are two separate suits and yet the one on facts the other i think you're on like you thank you