aggravated unlawful use of a weapon after a jury trial made the sense to eighty three years in prison and the trial was televised under the supreme court's new expanded media coverage program on appeal jones's argued for things this trial was actually the first criminal trial in the state that was televised under this new program the guidelines for the program explicitly prohibited any recording or broadcasting of any conversations not only that because counsel knew there was this possibility of being recorded and having their private conversations broadcast she refrained from discussing things with jones that ordinarily she would have so the the the audio pick up itself could record even her whispering to jones you know through most of the trial she knew key to the court once she became aware of the problem she told jones when and what he said turn counsel in court she herself limited to what what she said jones during the trial and at the end of the trial basically when she lets her guard down during the journey jury deliberations she is whispering to him in court and you can hear her ask you're pretty clearly you benefit the defendant gets from that is being able to confer with counsel being able to participate in his defense by conferring with counsel during the trial it's not enough that you know she told the court at jail which morning we were able to speak with each other you know in that regard they court the types of conversations that were initially picked up as your witnesses were testifying she would she didn't want to reveal anything i read that you told the court i would want to ask you questions about what this witness was saying where he was  it might have been from editing she tried to explain to the work what types of conversations were initially broadcast and then at some point she realizes this is still happening and starts to not talk starts to not ask questions and tells him watch what you say or don't say anything that might incriminate you i mean i don't know what she did so the argument is she's impeded you know she is if you never made any objection at all anything about this i mean this is this hing i don't think we really need to address it the next day she comes back to work and says your honor you know maybe i'm doing something wrong or some kind of button she has that i may be supposed to cut off the audio feed it's not clear she thinks maybe i'm doing something wrong but they're still recording they're still picking these things up and the judge says well you know we've warned them not to do this they're not supposed to the judge was clear they're not supposed to be doing this they're not supposed to record anything between your your client they're not supposed to be recording during the breaks there is a i believe an administrative personnel did you object to the record recording at all did you say stop recording or she did not object to the program being employed in  will require her to do that she complains about this problem twice to the judge she tells the judge my conversations with my client are being broadcast to the public that's a pretty serious problem you know say that is ineffective assistance i think she said enough though what she complains the first day it's a pretty serious problem she's complaining about in the court doesn't get the second time she complains about it all the court says is well we've warned them not to do this they know they're wanted she clearly want to work to make this problem stop clearly i think you're wrong or when she tells the judge they're recording my conversations with my client there's no purpose to tell the judge that if she doesn't want to stop him it's completely unclear why she would want prosecutors do object the prosecutors didn't argue all there is no impediment here the prosecutors had nothing to say about it there was no disputing no counsel consequence as i wasn't able to talk to him the way i would normally talk to a client when we're not recorded and broadcast for the public the prosecutor that is so i don't buy that i think you've got to show more than that there's no magic there's no questioning her statements she comes in and says i wasn't cheated if the prosecutor didn't believe it the prosecutor  all i don't believe that i think but nothing shows that she's impeded by her fear is that these conversations are going to be recorded and broadcast those d v d s peculiarly the d v d during the jury deliberation shows that her fears were justified she has to show an actual impediments the impediment is this possibility that her private conversations possibly incriminating conversations with the defendant are going to become public and it's not just a matter of the jury might possibly in these conversations it's a matter of the prosecutor hearing these conversations when prosecutors told the court it you know it looks like the news feed is maybe saying why during these things he was referring to something he'd seen earlier trial so he's apparently watching this you know whether the jury hears it or doesn't hear it counsel is justifiably concerned that this is being sent out to the public possibly to the jury possibly to the prosecutor whatever it is these are private confidential clients i mean if i think i'll be allowed to ask you counsel that while the trial is going on she's not only paying attention to the trial of what's being said by the witnesses what is occurring there but also making the list of things she wanted to talk about with jones that she was specific as to the conversation i believe she was trying to describe this when the when the problem first became apparent and she seemed to be that there was a lot of recordings you can place during breaks but maybe also she tried to explain to the judge hypothetically i think is how she put it if she didn't want to reveal anything you know a witness might be testifying witnesses saying something about me being weird witness i don't know she was something  were witness might have his hand when the crimes occurred or something like that and she would want to ask knowns you know what about this that this person is saying you know do you have anything to say about that you know so i think the idea is maybe i could have asked this person were questions here in cross examination ome that if and i would have been able to develop those questions had i been able to fully communicate with my clients would i think that is what she tries to explain to the court you know the defendant isn't required in that case to show what exactly he wouldn't have been what exactly he didn't talk about that he would have talked about had he not been concerned about the threat of of two thousand full shock or whatever it was of conversations that were initially reported that she was concerned about and that would be the type of thing down the road that she's not talking about that's the idea i mean i had these conversations before they were being recorded i can't have these conversations the rule itself was violated and on top of showing that it was violated we've got her on the record saying i was actually here to record elsewhere supports your wooden something on the rules what have you shown them i'm sorry you're putting something on top of the up i think absolutely to stand silent throughout the course of the trial and then at the end say oh by the way that i really shouldn't i can't talk to my father and i don't i forgot to mention a sorry i think that is is it was saying that she complained to the court last she complained to the court twice that sound was being picked up on her conversations that's a different from saying i i mean him to from speaking to my client about other words there if she's saying that there were things i could say to my client there's going to be a transcript of what she did inside but what she said was that there wasn't anything that i heard in had the violation allegedly not occurred and you know there's a question of you know the term you must be telling the truth while there are there are different layers of this practice question exhaustive but the supreme court hasn't found anything else that is the second wrong structure where and we know that for example in that case violating a supreme court rule wasn't structural and so here you've got a violation of the supreme what was in here but your representation in the thing and i know that that it said well there would be an impediment but that doesn't it doesn't come up until the very end there's a mention that i think maybe things  do but if it at the new trial motions of worth she can say some examples of where you could you know it was impaired my representation on this client was in there none of this comes up until the end  patients are privileged to the extent that there's nothing that would compromise an attorney client relationship in other words saying something like are you nervous i'm not sure that qualifies as a never addresses this but so i would suggest that if you have a home situation protection conversations picked up you have it duty to inform the judge and he has can do one of the things he can terminate media by not to show pressure trying to show prejudice as to what occurred and i don't think there's anything that she can be shown on this record as to what actually produce th so there are two aspects of that is there any proof that there was violated specifically in anything that was recorded you know ok so the engine then is there is nothing specifically showing any of that crap and the second question far as being able to read their representation because of this factor and how do you have to how much you have to say to say that you came a structure where you have to make some showing or just say that that just the attorney saying that it was an impediment is enough work you have to show that there were some things that you would have done that when you were prevented from doing and obviously per se that's an impediment or is it that you've got to say i was going to specifically answer things and i could do it during the trial you know and the and then there's the other factor you don't mention this until the very would are the parameters of the rules to say that even though i was appointed attorney i could really function there wasn't a problem function of a right to an attorney because of certain other operate during recess and to use a sensitive pick up that that could get what they was that book it is my room of the record is that the trial judge that supposedly the at issue so as far as the discussion of terminating unless he was informed again it is still that there is a problem how does he know he doesn't know how can be terminate regarding this the judge sent ok they've been told not to do this anymore and that that resulted as far as he was determined and that was it for the rest of the trial do you think that's enough yes i think it's enough but what is he supposed to have the you know is in prison for these conversations and they're not supposed to be watching it anyway so that's that the next morning counsel comes back again and that's when counsel says you know i'm pressing this button i don't know what's going on maybe it's my fault right there still recording stuff  it's stuff where they're definitely still picking things up they're going on between me and my client and the judge says wow you know they've been warmed the representative from the supreme court the office also indicated yeah the media has been told not says so that's that again that's the third time it's of the no that's morning conversation morning after there's another longer conversation and the judge at that point says while they've been warned that he might say i know i just will warn you again the prosecutor in the kids this is happening during the news feed or it was happening during the news feed two days ago and didn't question whether it was still happening and so those are going on while we're talking attorney client here norman supposed to be hearing these things certainly not the viewing public this is not supposed to be broadcast these rules are here for that purpose and so when she tells the judge this is question for this quirk we've got a radio station with a microphone or a defense counsel's table obviously that's a problem now is that the defense attorney in that case says more about then my client's trial attorney but it determines all that has to be done is will warn them again as we've previously warned them to stop doing this thing that they keep doing despite the clear prohibition and despite our warnings so i think it's enough here the council tells the poor there's no question this was happening own so really factually on the record only thing that we do know is that there are on two occasions that she