to that instead of presenting a united front to the court urging a court of reasons why the plea agreement should be accepted the prosecutor basically told the court i can't think of a good reason your honor why you should accept the that the responsible thing for the government to have done would have been to say your honor of the plea agreement has an escape clause from the government based on discovered evidence we've discovered that evidence we've met this exception our position is we're no stand that in been entirely correct right i don't know that they would have prevailed on that because i'm asking were they prevailed in up by making the statement i just described they would have been correct and turning square corners correct that's correct if they had asked for and out we could have had a hearing on it i would have had an opportunity to respond and then a doctor can sort it out i think in that the proper way i don't believe they would have e problem in the sense that it wasn't evident on the it wasn't evident from the face of the plea agreement i think the government would i believe they would have to say we knew about it because ye agreement i believe that had we gone that way i would have been able to point out to the court that these facts were evident and were known to the government and in fact the government did not move to withdraw because for whatever reason they very defense oriented and i think that that knowledge if they had a victim who wasn't willing to come to trial or who did not come to trial they would have had a very difficult time proving their case  i think are our larger concerns are what his comments when i offered to get a psychological evaluation when we walked into court we didn't know for sure what we did we had a recommendation by the problem apartment we don't know if the court would accept  would argue that it's abused its discretion although even under the plane era standard we would prevail because i think that we have we have the due process right to present potentially medicating evidence to the court i don't see any need for a judge roberts and so he answered supervisor yes why didn't the government seek to withdraw from from the plea agreement based on the turn absolutely square corner and when you enter into a plea agreement that eleven specially eleven c agreement that calls for a definitive sentence you've struc bargain unless the defendant violates the plea agreement breaches that in some material way the government is obligated to come to court and if nothing else remains silent but here's the lawyer and the reason reason the supervisor gave that it didn't that the supervisor did not have a real good reason for the court said the plea agreement but she was doing is responding to the course direct question is there any reason why i should accept this plea agreement and she had a duty of candor to respond because quite frankly i think the first time supervising made a bad deal here i mean that's the that's a pretty low blow well certainly that would have been prefer want to enter into plea agreements with your office when they behave this way because ultimately the government in this case is ready to be bound by that plea agreement that had signed the law it's told the court had no good reason to including the apparent unwillingness or reluctance of the victim to come forward based on the relationship with the defendant i'm inclined to to accept the agreement what say the government and she had said the same thing well i think that would be a different situation and this case the discovered because the district court in this case was specifically asking for reasons why i should accept the plea agreement and she had an opt out because we agreed with the defendant we future no i think we doing a lot and see deal with you by the way we have no obligation to encourage the court to abide by the agreement and impose the sentence no i think the district court ultimately has has to make the determination as to whether or not in about the district court solve legation more parking about the obligation of the united states government to turn square corners and they did they did not recommend that the government that the district court accept the green or explain to the corps why there was good legal and factual reasons why the government ought to be excused from the agreement and the record doesn't  defendant if he went ahead with the sentence what it would be would have been perfectly within judge roll's rights to say i reject it we're back to ground zero correct right but he told the defendant here's what you're going to get if you go through and i want you to think about it for a while i'm with seven they should you can back out but that had nothing to do with anything the government did at that sentencing hearing that you know but i think it's important that the government be able to respond with candor to the course question and in fact it's fake in the ordinary plea agreement when there is no legal cause within the confines of the agreement and the government's agreed to a plea agreement that it's perfectly appropriate if the office has second guesses about having entered into that agreement to tell the court that it had not been accepted when the supervisor made that statement to the district court in response to the district court's direct question they want to know whether or not you know i want to be fully informed before i made the important decision as to whether or not this plea was in the interests of justice and no matter what the government said it could have very well reject that the agreement anyway indeed if this court to on i want to say something as a former federal prosecutor i'm very displeased with the conduct of your office argument calendar which is the united states versus hammer counsel are present will be please come forward