good morning your honor so i may please the court my client's trial was a credibility contest between himself and his father believe bryant the question was whether the jury would believe my client a troubled seventeen year old kid or his past aside from that his criminal records are not in the record and the physical evidence and the testimony in this case were consistent with my client's story but the two public defenders that represented him made numerous agree just errors and he was ultimately convicted i'm not here today to pick around the edges of the state's case the errors that we're talking about are serious and meaningful what's the most scared i think of probably the most serious of these is the fact that the public defenders failed to preserve an objection to inadmissible testimony from two police officers that they heard my client confessing to his mother shortly after he was arrested at the other errors it issued the second is that they failed to impeach testimony from a witness named al corn who testified that my client had been heard threatening to kill the victim despite the fact that she never made any such statement in various police interviews and interviews with defense counsel before trial they also failed to object to is your question that led to the ignition of my client's juvenile convictions despite pretrial ruling by the court that those convictions were not admissible they opened the door to testimony about a prior cation between my client his mother despite warning just the day before from the judge that us almost identical question would open the door to that testimony and then the state withheld evidence that just two days before the murder victim said that jean tended to leave her husband but was afraid that he would kill her if she did and those were threats she believed given his long history of savage abuse but let me first address the supposed confession if that's really what it was the court should understand that the only evidence that this confession actually happened was the testimony of the top cers of the state or is in this this testimony was cumulative of other testimony from my client his mother but that's simply not true the officer said that they heard my client say quote i told dad there was a problem he didn't take care of it so i did neither my client nor his mother testified to anything of the sort my client categorically denied that he'd ever said that he was going to quote take care of any problem with this stepmother and his mother testified that he repeatedly told her that he didn't do it and even the audiotape of the supposed confession didn't corroborate the police officers testimony it's undisputed that that audiotape is you know audible so if we put aside the state's red herring about cumulative notice the question is was trial counsel deficient  failing to object to the second officer testimony and we would submit would be the basis of the objection that it was inadmissible under the indiana state statute which provides that a private consultation with the parent must be provided before the defendant can speak to police which the indiana appeals court in the direct appeal concluded was a an appropriate objection a sustainable objection and that in fact the testimony by the officer shouldn't have been admitted and that their behavior was quote reprehensible and egregious so obviously counsels to preserve this objection they knew that this was  objectionable they'd raised it before trial they even knew that the failure to object could result in a waiver they admitted as much in the post conviction proceed there's just no reasonable explanation for why they would fail to object to this this was not a minor issue this was a confession in a murder case so why did the state court find that they weren't deficient well they gave two reasons and neither of those hold any water so the first reason they gave is that the objection would have been futile they said well counsel objected before trial and it was over rule you know is it your notion that a should have been your client should have been acquitted and the father prosecuted well obviously we you know we don't have against that poetry is not helpful if you were acquitted would you expect that it be indicted i have no idea whether the father would be indicted should he have been likely but i don't have access to everything that the state knew about the father or or any insight into whether the state prosecutor would pursue that case so let's talk about why the state court said that this objection should it was not deficient to make this objection they gave two reasons the first they said is that it was futile and that because the trial counsel been overruled when they made the objection before trial and when it is made to objection to the first  attorneys testimony that they did not need to make the first officers test sorry the first officer's testimony that they did not need to object the second time that's just utterly inconsistent with decisions from both this court and the supreme court that it's not quite the right lens to look at this through that the existence of a duty to preserve in order to get review is different from the question of whether it's an effective not to and there might be all kinds countervailing reasons not to lodge an objection that would be necessary to preserve an argument for appeal well i agree and that's what i was going to move to next which is ok why did this attorney fail to make this objection what we have testimony from the attorney what the attorney said is it was a mistake i knew i needed to preserve right but that's a subjective view or looking at this through an objective standard whether it was constitutionally ineffective which is a very high bar regularly relies upon counsel's post conviction testimony about what their strategic reasons were right when we're we're doing plenary strickland review and we're not in the name you know this is well that happens all the time there were several cases cited in our brief and there's so there's more cases that i could cite and what the what the what they're trying to insert with the post conviction court said is that it couldn't consider that testimony because it was hindsight and that's simply is inconsistent with the decisions from this court in the supreme court but then a defendant's lawyer thinks that the case is going badly can throw it well that's an concern like a defense attorney could throw if there is no in fact he would have an ethical obligation to throw it well no would have an ethical obligation to make an error and then confess his own error in order to achieving get his client another trial that's an extraordinary position i don't take that position i mean if if in fact in this attorney and say would we expect this attorney to make these kind of errors it's a matter of public record that this attorney has now given up her license and as a state prison for manufacturing methamphetamine so this is an attorney who it's not surprising would brady violation than we have in this case at the post conviction here in the tracy beamer testified that just two days before she was murdered the victim had told her that you wanted to leave her husband but was afraid that he would kill her if she did she gave the police a written statement to this effect that was never turned over to the defense and the state doesn't even seriously contest that in fact there was such a written statement that was not turned over to the defense and we think the idea that this didn't prejudice the defense in this case is initially tried to keep bryant's statement to his mother out by objecting to detective goldman's testimony at trial when the court overruled that objection counsel did what they could to try to mitigate the damage first they highlighted all of the tech to pullman's and consistencies about where he was when you heard that statement is a consistency between the grand jury testimony the suppression hearing and then a trial to show that he was not a credible witness for the jury defense counsel also presented the video the not the video but the audio recording of the interview with bryant's mother to show the jury how poor the audio was as if to say if you can't hear him say the statement how could the officers have heard that statement themselves so when ups are wheeling testified about the same statement counsel already knew with the court's ruling would have been had they objected to that statement so therefore it was cute how to object because they knew what the outcome of that ruling was going to be so their their objective was not to highlight that statement not subject too much to make it look like they were hiding something from the jury because they knew they knew without with a ruling on that objection would be counsel also presented bryant's mother's testimony to contradict what the officer said and bryant's mother testified that bryant said repeatedly during the company consultation i didn't do it i didn't do it so the jurors had that testimony to weigh with the officer what they heard and the recording of with the jurors could have hurt themselves brian was not prejudiced by this testimony because there was substantial independent evidence of his guilt he was the last person seen with the victim while she was alive he drove around her car for three days with her body in the trunk as if the car were his own and he gave away and sold some of her jewelry there was also a shoe string from his boot that was in his room that was wrapped around the victim's body wrapped around the comforter in the truck that shoestring came from bright spirit and of course the victim was killed by ligature strangulation there were no fingerprints or on was killed by still there on thursday he would be gone and of course went missing on wednesday he also said in a rattler that the people wouldn't be able to recognize you when they pulled you out of the car which of course is where the father in the trunk of the car and her t n a is on his pants that's correct that's correct and jeans ever has heard you just met that and the brady claim the state did not withhold material evidence from the defense because counsel could have contacted pm or they knew that the detective had spoken with beamer based on his report so they could have contacted her so therefore the state did not withhold that evidence now as far as their as whether there was a written statement beamer testified that she did give a written statement detective bowman testified that he could not find a written statement he didn't know who written statement the court never explicitly found that there was one the court just analyzed the claim as if there had been and the testimony that beamer could have offered would not have reasonably made a difference in the outcome of the trial or the material under brady analysis because the information that she had what about hearsay so would not have been in this trial if posing counsel first of all the all of the evidence that goes in counsel mentions and that is discussed by the state is consistent with my client's testimony there was no dispute that my client had the car and was in possession of the victim's jewelry and the body after the murder that was consistent with his story the critical time period here is not after the murder days later the critical time period is murder on that there was two pieces of evidence implicated my client there was a supposed confession overheard by police officers and there were testimony of a threat to kill by alice al corn neither of the well the confession should never have come in and would have been or determined to have been fight while he was on lunch break the absolutely natural thing to do not that it's natural to kill your wife but if you've done so on lunch break and you don't want to be implicated you're the husband who everyone knows to be abusive has to go back to work and that's precisely what my client testified happened and so that and so why did he then put his stepmother in the trunk of his car and drive around for four days with her jewelry without bothering to go to the police all the testimony from my client was that his father in fact you know adds his father ask him to do it but the idea that you're going to steal your stepmother is jory in order to get away from your father permanently and you then drive around with your stepmother's body in the trunk of your car for an extended period not going to the police not doing anything is awfully hard to reconcile with a claim of innocence let me say it let me say a few that's not true the car broke down and he was not in possession of the car after a day and obviously so it's not days he did not all go to the police and say there is a body in this broken down car correct and had he done so he would have been implicat ing his father and so is it is it appropriate behavior no is it believable that a son does not want to implicate his father and himself by the way he is now an excessively hazard perfectly happy to implicate his father that was his defense right after he was arrested for the murder and the other weapon beacon you know well one could understand this is i've murdered my step mother i'm going to try to get away with it when i fail we get away with it all try to blame somebody else it's awfully hard to interpret the record any other way well it's the evidence is fully consistent with the other story which is that his father murdered his stepmother on a lunch break after beating her savagely for years and that's when you know that's what we think the jury may well have