can establish that there was absolutely no basis upon which this theory might not have at least potentially worked it seems to me that we're we're left with the choice of the attorney you know lawyer space with two two or three maybe potential defenses need and want to which is very that in this case you have a stark contrast between what the lawyer selected and what was of viable and perhaps a wi the argument on on several things first of all the selection itself was on reasonable and i base that on this the facts of the case are very straightforward mr laurie was in a bar he had a little confrontation with another individual they end up in the men's room hallway unfortunately in the presence of mr manchester who's got lousy eyesight well to be fair to mr ben cesky he some physical limitations well certainly i think any lawyer would do that but the other the other focus of my argument is not only did in my view his lawyer totally ignore the facts of the case that would be presented knife and killed him the problem i have with your argument is that it really relates to like you have to stand there it relates to a much larger scenario here because as you well know you're familiar with the record there was more than one lawyer on behalf of your client in the first lawyer thought that the self defense argument was one thing plan to advance the self defense argument and it sounds like to be from reading this record that your client didn't like the self defense argument could be yeah and you're going kelly first said he was going to plan the self defense thing then the judge suggested there might be something wrong with that you might not even get an instruction unless you have the facts to support it so your client brought in another lawyer mr ray correct and at that point there lowery himself express dissatisfaction with with the self defense and so ray went with the other with the other theory and there are lots of reasons for that including the yellow sheet thing and a bunch of evidence that he cited and it seems to me that your client himself one of the  this misidentification defense is going to work plus they decided in order for self defense to work that have to put lowry on the stand and that's when seen like a great idea well i think to differ with the court and i've done some criminal trials and all and  case that's not the standard and in fact i think the state court judge mess there pretended the proper standard in when he sat in his order well i can't imagine working winning his case that's not the standard court has to give two layers of deference one to the state courts in terms of whether or not they applied strickland reasonably and second to mr ray and mr dare's tactical decisions that what we have here is said i don't think i'm going to give you an instruction you look like you have a pretty weak case it's hilarious offered ten you were basically a plea that could have given him as little as ten years on the indications from the prosecution the trial judge were you going to get that he rejected that when that he had an opportunity to have done so because he was one of the first officers at the scene he had access to the blood he was seen talking to a yellow shirt and he you know obviously could have because he was the first person to received but the police washed off mr wright also consulted and had testified the former medical examiner chief medical examiner america county who also looked at this knife and life show collyer who was the person who was in it in charge of the phoenix crime with a one point time say hey if this was the murder weapon and the victim was wearing a shirt where the fibers the cloth and where is the tissue that would be there but isn't it he's of substance that should be there it wasn't there there were also photographs that indicated that there aspect of the case on top of that i can establish before we have spence and having the opportunity to do the planning we have inconsistent descriptions as to where the knife was found was it wedged in the side was that on the top you had conflicting stories from the police you also have yellow shirt who is being described and very suspicious terms charlie i called them said he was very suspicious looking i think the police should have stopped him we kept them around instead he took off he also had a witness say that he saw trial counsel looked at this witness and he said look yes he has some vision problems but he also can play pool he can distinguish colors he's actually one pool games he was able to walk around this crowded bar with one hundred people and he was still able to to do that actually officer lopez had a a blind brother and dealt with him and said that he was is convinced they could say something so really what's important here is that the person who did the stabbing according to mr right was not the defendant but rather someone wearing a light colored shirt defense well actually mr ray testified that he had presented such aggressive the times this previously and had prevailed on them so he believed that he could succeed doing that so i want to talk about something else i mean the self defense theory was going know he knew what he was doing say that to the police now he what he said was he cut the guy and that you know he basically said that if i didn't do it i did it and he had it coming it was self defense right now mr reddy knowledge that what he basically said was  mean we don't know if for example was just the kind of the night mr baskets and that in the front which i think larry did admit to at least but also we have yellow shirt and i have to be i have to be candid with you judge when i first read the record it d on me why it was that mr wright spent so much time talking about the blood splatter evidence and why didn't the sedona police department do any sort of investigation of the blood take samples well they said i cut the guy who had the meeting in yellow shirt the guy drunk yes and he also had a prior conviction for basically engaging in violent behavior while being drunk now that this trial court said look i'm not going to let you get into the conviction impeaching him under rule six zero nine because the california conviction was when he was a minor in juvenile adjudication but prosecutor i will allow you to question him about it under rule for a four day so calling him to the stand was fraught with a lot of risk and i think that when you take a look at the fact that mr actually had you know was not happy with the self defense case if he was happy with the possibility of getting a lesser included that i submit to the court that he would have taken that plead greymouth and taken his ten years but he wasn't he wanted an all or nothing defense and so he was actually going forward with that he did not want the self defense case and how can an attorney put his client on the stand knowing he doesn't believe in the defense and you're basically at war with your clients protestations of innocence i do want to  cut it address a couple factual points that counsel addressed fast as never study was in the mexican mafia what he said was don't f with the mexican mafia which could be a statement meaning yes mr laurie i'm of the mexican mafia but  could be yellow shirt who is the person that stabbed him according to the defense theory there's also something else that needs to be addressed at no time did the defendant ever say i thought these two men were armed in fact he testified at the rule thirty page two sixty two that he never saw bastos with the weapon and i page two sixty six the stand the same transcript and redirect in response to his own counsel's questions they asked him did you see any weapons he said of the last thing on my mind in order to be