c claim obviously if it wasn't wrong not to give unanimity instruction there isn't really an ineffective assistance of counsel and in my view i think the focus should be  on whether there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether this was one continuous course of conduct or not clearly we have evidence that mr ray made the statement during the transaction and i don't have because there's no we to talk about a plot point i agree but but for the same reason we don't know what if there was we don't know what the true intentions of either of them where they're both out there and there's two ways of viewing that he could have been acting alone or it could have been a team effort we also have a conflict in the three officers was allowed to testify that he thought it was a team effort that that was one continuous course of conduct yet came in and testified that it was not so you have a conflict the way i look at the way i look at this is the unanimity instruction is close to as important as the beyond a reasonable doubt instruction that's one of the foundational principles of our criminal system the jury must be unanimous and if there was a such a if there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether it was s judgment call on his part because he knew they were separate there were two different separate acts two different conversations going on out there then when he withdrew it i think you have to ask yourself the question what what defense attorney what i recall from reviewing the excerpts that there was reference to him testifying that he was not that he was he was not coronating his efforts but i can't give you a page and line reference at this point i do recall that when he came out to the officers after the conversation with mr ray that said what do you want to the officer and that the officer had said at that point i'm just looking to score a quarter but i do not want to go to the corner meaning i do not want to go to the corner with mr ray and it was at that point that mister he we said we can get you which i think can be viewed two ways it can be viewed as work together on this or it could be viewed as i want to get involved in this will make a new they'll all come together now separate and apart from what was going on with when you and mr and i was interested and maybe i misheard you and i think that's what i heard you say i remember that from you from reviewing the records but i just can't point to it right at this point i'm sorry if you would get just like yeah i believe there was no conflict in the evidence if there was then the instruction should have been given and it either should have been given so sponsored by the court much like a beyond a reasonable doubt instruction and certainly   what's your case a supreme court precedent that was violated by the trial court's action or in this matter i don't understand well actually applying the at the standard how was the admission  i think though that when we only talk about if you're referring to the defendant defendant's counsel i thought the remarks that are referenced on an excerpt for exhibit b pages twenty it's on page twenty two i consider the statement of mistral authentic to officer wilson as separate and i'm associated with mr reddy there are not adequate reasons i felt that his own counsel reflect what possible benefit could mr ray have received from abandoning that important principle really it's his one shot it's a shot at possibly a hung jury or not being we don't we have a transcript of the trial in the district court record in this case just on the failure on the spirit court to instruct them unless you get the same question under ineffective assistance of counsel and that's why i laid it out in the brief assuming then that it's only a question of state law but he might have been entitled to requested by his lawyer it would have been given why is that not harmful understood that's a tough question because the  testifying to the fifteen to twenty second conversation in which he started a conversation with appellant and ended the conversation with peewee now this conversation started with appellant the jury found offering there was no there's no other scenario for that for the jury to enter into but they probably you know it doesn't really matter whether the officer has to do exactly right whether he we has it exactly whether reasonable juror would believe one and not the other now we have one officer testifying to the events what a reasonable juror believe he was lying immediately into the conversation and telling the truth at the end of the conversation or vice versa sure a reasonable reasonable gergis believe witnesses all the time and after good reason they just believe witness was wrong and also i did read the transcript prior in preparation for this argument i don't i'm sure the justices had read many of the closing arguments i didn't quite follow what he was trying to say i don't know what was on his mind evidence so basically this was one transaction and i i took from that that the prosecution was trying to say you know if you believe the people we came over here and tried to sell drugs i felt it was this team and that's what he was there