fire so he tells the judge that it's about money and he'll stay on a few pointed so that it doesn't cost him anything and i can't see where your question your honor brings up exactly the reason why there should have been a hearing upon the enormous request for new counsel number one we only get the information about what gallagher stead or what was that to gallagher and what he then repeated to the a limited it's a deposition both sides can question him his own lawyer can question him and bring out anything that the warrior on the other side doesn't bring out so that i mean a deposition one of the most wide open and best sources of his counsel was either incompetent or that he wanted to get new retained counsel we only have let me let me go with you that far i think i'd be more comfortable if the judge should done all this in open court however the deposition during the post conviction proceedings is when we're going to get a chance to show what the judge would have found out had he conducted a hearing in open court and said well what's your problem with gallagher and explore the whole business and there what we find out is that romer didn't tell gallagher we don't think you're any good we don't think you have enough experience in criminal law that's not true mr le was operating he was still following the rules he knew that he was still represented by counsel and was operating through counsel relying on mr gallagher to then go forward and get off the case  violation codes there can always code of was there but we don't have a record we didn't have the judge holding a hearing to ask mr gallagher mr lerma as he's required to do what do you do what are you going to make a record subsequently here's what we would have shown what we what do you family the consensus of all of that is mr lerman and the family and mr larsen want me to represent this morning on the sentencing hearing and i would ask mr lerma is that your understanding of how we are proceeding this morning mr lehrer might answer yes sir the court just for clarification mr lerma alex is that your understanding of how we are proceeding mr yes mr larsen that is my understanding i got involved in this case in the last few days to review the record talk to gallagher talk to the women is basically i'm here just hanging out on the side i am on the case it's my understanding that mr gallagher is still an accused and continuing with the case what do we do with that the lawyers the family the defen mandatory minimum sentence that's already prescribed by law when they got in contact with another attorney they had already been told by mr gallagher gallagher that the court will not appoint another attorney at this late date and we see that as after things that the court must look for evaluate the depth of the conflict between the defendant and counsel the extent of any breakdown in communication how much time making necessary for a new attorney to get on the case and any delay or inconvenience so he wasn't a criminal attorney he was he was not a criminal attorney per se according to mr lerma they weren't happy with his representation he was retained and he should have gotten off the case when for holding in chambers conference and moving forward instead of getting off the case and that was the a violation of his right to be present at all critical stages as well as to a violation of the right to have a new attorney or at least an they're part of a gang would get him if he didn't give them first pretty bad the fence and nothing to fence he might say his lawyer still manages to get it down from first degree to second degree seems like kind of miracle in the circumstances  must have been real want to correct the victim so i'm trying to figure out these people get unhappy with their water gosh i was a criminal defense lawyer sometimes they get unhappy with you when you talk on the facts of life and i can see what prejudices what and i can see if the judge could help hearing that you say he should have held and then i'd be more cost of all the detail of whether we should hold it or not i can't see what could have been shown what would have been shown what would have been different what would have been accomplished in what i'm getting at is a little different from that two different in my court the ninth circuit gets hit on the head with a figurative baseball bat by the supreme court with some frequency first saying the rules violated reversed when we don't say what was the case is disgusting what the court is supposed to do when you bring a valid motion for a new council there was no inquiry whatsoever until after the fact at sentencing and even then that sentencing  y wasn't enough because it was just a mere question an answer and mr lerma standing next to the person who's not going to address the court and ask for leniency in they think got another lawyer they're hired by the family to look over mr gallagher shoulder there was nothing to do at that point expense thing other than stand up and say i don't know many things certainly so there's incompetent representation by mr gallagher here at the trial and gallagher asked the judge says to the judge you know there's been some question about making this representations to the trial court or any such thing the claim in the post conviction was that the trial court denied his due process rights by not making inquiry into the reasons why mr lambert did not want gallagher representing him the record told mr gallagher or his family told them we don't want you to represent what not not we don't want we cannot have you representing him anymore because we can't afford it and deposition in the post conviction the petitioner specifically said we told him that because we didn't want to hurt his feelings they did not tell mr gallagher we don't want you anymore they did not tell mr gallagher we want a different lawyer they told mr gallagher we want you to ask the court if you could and if you would have to point someone because we can't afford it anymore which is exactly what mr gallagher presented to the trial court this was two weeks before the trial the court granted petitioners motion and also explains at that point the family has hired another lawyer to review my work not surprisingly he advises the family because you can afford another lawyer the courts probably not going to appoint and you underscores that newsletter someone else that's the conviction and last and last the petitioner going to explain why he didn't raise it at trial one of the ways to explain that you didn't raise a trial is that you say well i didn't raise it because my attorney was forcing me not to say anything or some