if this was the first pass of the statute had just been passed since the question of ok can we deduct a constitutional points on this i would suggest that your honor would be correct the problem is we have an entire body of law that is already construed  that you know perhaps if we had some sort of legislative solution the legislature has nothing to teach the ins in some states i believe very recently in michigan they've decided we can missions a state that still has that hasn't been exist in existence for decades is that the statutory scheme here just doesn't leave much choice and also submit that it would still be a very severe severe sentence and even in the of the maximum even if it he shared with his father codefendant you know did not raise this claim under the williams rule i think you know it's very important to coke or to know the various standards at issue here i'm not asking this court to resolve in the briefs it's a fairly lengthy and complicated issue it really boils down to this points to two points of dispute between mr lucy on the state and those one of the state know when and are these based on the same act as the question of one of the state no no one i submit that is exactly the kind of question for which remand an attorney is necessary because that's information you know that's in most in the hands of the state budget that information was also in the years of dropped here we don't know whether the state could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt but it you know there's nothing in any of the authorities department lanes or quickly that says that indicates that proof beyond reasonable doubt is what the was that was a murder where the defendant shot several victims and intent to get the death penalty the state charge of independently in sequence for victim victim that's why we have these compulsory jointer rules it's to bend that repetitious sort of charging and the in the in the court they are dated the state's knowledge from when i first got this report that the earth three defendant had confessed to somebody else now maybe that would be the state believe that was enough to take them to trial maybe they did not  hear the record shows that they had the the investigators had reports all the way back as a couple of weeks after the shooting to death something implicated my client in the shooting if we're looking at the first statement by a witness if we couldn't find the service or did then that necessarily experience we looking at the briefs i wasn't expecting to see you here today i hope you knew about it before yesterday and i did your honor thank you again i also want to think this court because i found out fairly recently that i was doing the argument and this court very kindly allowed us to have the record friday and so at least i was able to read parts of the game and going back to what was most recently discussed among the parts of the record that i was able to read included the appendix things they were in the head the exhibits to the post conviction petition do not indicate the type of evidence that showed up later they do in fact supported what were the ringleader charges when they were the weapons because it's not ethical to proceed as a prosecutor and a charge that you can't prove if we as a matter of course cherish cases that we couldn't that prove up we'd all be in front and the items in to defend its appendix is that the police initially had a confidential informant who i think turned out to be miguel regus or anthony or if there was one village who said that there was there were say this is the plan and i'm telling you we're getting the south us they said they're going to give us this is it show that the defendant is in fact directing the meetings it doesn't show that the defendant is the person truthful testimony at that point a group of drug offenders who had admitted to lying and bring your murder trials not just this one as part of federal drug deals agreed that they essentially because neither the police reports nor the transcripts that are appended are so clear cut that they could have indicated that the state had sufficient evidence to go forward so i guess my position would be that the trial court had enough before it released the trial transcript we send this court through the transcript and based on the transcripts that were appended to make the determination that is that the people had enough to go forward and the trial court determined that the people did not have enough to go forward nothing that seems to have been developed at the trial nor in the defendant's exhibit with indicating that the people had anything more than this very distraught probably a strong suspicion that my channel was in fact guilty of the murder of my countability however until they had the information that stemmed from the federal drug prosecutions they did not have strong enough evidence to actually proceed in a murder prosecution i understand the federal drug investigation and in truth and i'm sorry if this sounds like a coward but ultimately that is what you have to decide to try reach one decision but you have the parties before you each taking a fairly  ethical being for the air to see rather than trying cases it was so compelling that they had to charge the weapons charge in the solicitation charge at the time they did why didn't they wait for better evidence the weapons charges they had quite a bit of evidence and you have my murder to see this digital invitation and so at the point where you have enough evidence to try particularly charges nothing would prevent you from going forward procedural it does it does not meet cheek second exception a colleague of mine did what i think is perhaps a good analogy of watershed that i've heard her analogy was you're walking one on the natural outgrowth of graham and rober also they talk about the reasoning the way the actions so the majority opinion would lead us to believe that this was in the natural  outgrowth because it was a natural outgrowth you can't really be watershed you can't really be a significant change also i think to the extent that we're talking about general problem is less telling that some other procedural problems which have now been found to be cheap are you making your your argument at sentencing in the event that that's what happens in this case you wouldn't let council offender under eighteen would be for a double murder and so it would be rare and beautiful like this were a new trial now i believe that natural life would be an available sentence following the sense of hearing there yes but again would be have to be after sentencing hearing where the trial her court her both their debating and mitigating evidence and the majority opinion would lead one to believe that the mitigating evidence appearing appearing on the record in open court that would indicate fun with this it's based upon the conversations that the attorney has with his client here to hear the trial record were these witnesses witness after witness after witness