charged with armed robbery and felony murder he pled not guilty and he hired a private attorney to represent him he proceeded to a jury trial when defense counsel immediately conceded his guilt to the armed robbery which was an ass hence a concession t it his presence patient in the armed robbery which was in it i sense an admission to the participation in the felony murder because that the jury was only left with the choice to disregard the law in order to find him not guilty of felony murder under these circumstances defense counsel failed to subject the prosecution's case to any meaningful adversarial testing and prejudice must be  guilty you've decided that you want to go to trial you decided that you want the state to be held to its burden of proof defense counsel rockton can said he committed the armed robbery which all the chains and has to do is look at the felony murder instruction and they have no choice but to find him guilty of felony murder isn't it and reported decision followed hendrie other than chandler so chandler follows harry and says this is horribly in effect to the point where again for lack of effort as opposed to stupid things you know defense lawyers from teen mothers who didn't have to f a critical distinction that the evidence was much worse that they were that defense counsel had his client admitting to these things also in those cases defense counsel did not did not admit to the offenses at any point during the trial here white from earlier this summer in our supreme court where the supreme court held that once you go worth alleged ineffective assistance of counsel once you say that there's the evidence is overwhelming that ends the analysis there is no need to trust anything other than that in this case must show that counsel strategy was unreasonable in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case defendant must show a reasonable probability also that is head is attorney pursued another line of defense there is a strong likelihood acquittal he cannot demonstrate either one of these first of all this is a strickland case this is not a chronic head or a case what separates the two is that under the chronic header line those cases require that counsel it essentially acts as a proponent for the prosecution and tireless fails to set subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing lesser offenses in order to present a defense on the greater offense and in fact in one of the cases they had as i think the defense that was put forward was mercy killing well there's no mercy killing exception to first degree murder but the and the same thing happens in this case what defense counsel did in this case was to put forward a theory to the jury based upon evidence that the jury could take back to the jury room and discuss and talk about and reach a verdict of not guilty on first degree murder not policed upon the law that was they were instructed but upon it theory of equity that under the facts and circumstances of this case it would not be justice to convict this defend first degree murder even if he was guilty of the armed robber now this is it this is up to the jury to to make its decision and that the courts have said that although the jury does not  have the right of notification it does have the power because there is no remedy for it and it does have the power of lenity and that's what defense counsel is asking the jury to do and there is ample case law that says when the evidence is overwhelming that there really is no other way to defend the case it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do it is a long shot no question it may fail no question but that doesn't make it invalid as a matter of  constitutional representation furthermore the defense counsel under the strict line of cases defendant has to prove a strong possibility strong likelihood that h counsel chosen another defense there would have would have been an acquittal well if you look at the evidence in this case there is simply nothing else that could have been argued counsel says that there is no statement and that's what separates this case from yesterday's and gayness and chatter and that whole line but in those cases the defendants were not a rest of on the scene in the process they were arrested days later sometimes weeks or months later so a statement became very important to prove up identity intent the elements of defense here you have to defend it in locked into the place into the store at times that he was armed with a gun that he was caught early seen by the police trying to get out he could subject he could make the people prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt but that's always a possibility it's always an option as an option in shatters an option and yes it is an option bloomberg but it's not the only option and it's not constitutionally mandated if defense counsel can look at the evidence and put forward a theory to the jury that the jury can take back and return a verdict based upon its estimation of what the equities are  no reasonable option for defense counsel in this case to have done otherwise and the fact that it didn't work is nat does not spazzed have been anyway so basically what your head is it is a a prejudice prong and the pursuit given only applies where there has been a complete abandonment of the of the defended by his attorney to the tender mercies of the prosecution where the offense counsel essentially changes sides and you do not have thread here here you have a strategy that defendant put forward based upon the facts and in order to find ineffective assistance that's the prejudice prong has to be satisfied and and the fact it's not a per  conviction thank you thank you i'm just very briefly attorney pointed out or argued that defense counsel could always require the straight the state to prove the elements piano reasonable doubt but that's not the only option i believe that that is the only option and that is right defense counsel is ineffective in this case and the prejudice does not need to be shown and i mean a child about a close is i'm happy to photocopy it for you but i think that this is a case where you need to go and look at all of these cases right on on me and on the state and find that's whishing factors in all these cases