this morning riders i'm going to focus my argument on the first issue raised in my brief and specifically the portion of that issue that miss maggie was prejudiced by her attorneys on reasonable decision to not request that the codefend ineffective to do that because the implications from codefendant including joyce mcgee as a as a complete member of this plan are still some of the worst damaging evidence they can come in a that the police asked her leading questions with information in those questions provided by the she does not she does not deny that so does going on with him but she maintains throughout the interrogation that she did not she was not part of any plan to rob an happened but she had just seen somebody get shot and so she basically found the directions of peterson who told her what to do told her where to get in the cab and at that point she was acting under under shock and she want to leave her friends so she put she was just this not evidence that she actually had active participation in this plan from her mouth she assented to things that the police provided that came from co defendants co defendants who are the people that placed her is part of the part of any kind of plan to rob this to the cab drive down a car to do anything like that and she was completely taken aback by the shooting and even if the time she was interrogated she had no idea she didn't think this person died he actually watched a little bit reasoned argument here i'm arguing that the judge relied on statements that came in in the videotape interrogation from co defendants which placed her as part of this plan to take the cab and steal money from an armor case when the judge made his findings he said that joyce won't hear information that only someone part of the criminal enterprise would have know and that led him to believe that the plane went beyond running out on a camper to review the videotape said that you knew that the plan was to take the cab and steal the armored car and she denied it in her statement so the fact that the judge relied on that information shows that she relied on the hearsay statements based on from the co defendants and the evidence  overwhelming and yet she was with these people were not to name she was present still circumstantial evidence that she touched the phone but she just she was not an active participant to this to fix this what happened she wasn't there this is peterson's idea this is what peterson wanted to do so the fact that the evidence was not overwhelming in closely balanced in the judge relied on statements from co defendants in finding joyce mcgee guilty and we think requires a new trial in this case and we made his findings he indicated that he did not follow the law because when he said he relied on information that someone from the criminal enterprise could have only provided that information came from co defendants to this the police never called then felony review entire video be shown she's a stopped from arguing this invited air on appeal but this case really boils down to now is an issue of trial strategy and the people contend that chess strategy was evident from the record from  statement our way through closing argument and the trial court's findings were laid a road map beginning with counsel's opening statement he made clear that his strategy was to show that the defendant was not a willing or knowing participant in this crime and the way that he was able to do that one he was able to show the trial court what he pointed out was ever thirty plus denials of her involvement in this crime and how that benefited her was that the trial court was able to see her testify to her lack of participation or her lack of knowledge without actually having to put her on the stand and be subject to cross examination by the state secondly defense counsel also was able to show to the trial court or provide to the trial court an issue of voluntariness he was able to show in the seven hours how this defendant went from blaming pick computer excuse me blaming people that had nothing to do with the crime and what they are all the way through to when she eventually confessed to her complicity in this crime at that point and he points out in closing argument he was able to show look she was crying these investigators were mean to her they weren't doing themselves to her by calling her honey they were trying to confuse her they were providing topics to her again the benefit here by showing that entire videotape to trial court is that the trial court was allowed to look at it and determine voluntariness for itself and in fact the trial court recognized that this was defense counsel strategy when he made his findings and closing argument and specifically pointed out that he understood that the defendants or defense counsel's decision to withdraw the motion to suppress statements after discussing it with his client was so that he could determine the voluntariness simultaneously at tr it and in addition admit oh yeah you're right she's not confronted elliott told us that you know about the gun she doesn't say that in fact there's at one point in the statement and people's exhibit number one hundred where pearson says she knew that he had a gun she says she didn't know there's another statement in people's exhibit number one hundred where she said she's confronted that peterson says that he has the gun in the cab she sa council called intense interrogation i think also too when you're looking at trial strategy as just someone pointed out there's an issue as to prejudice and people contend that there was no prejudice here there's absolutely nothing in this record were it could be said that either the trial court or the people relied upon these non hearsay statements as substantive evidence at no time did the people argue in closing argument that the reason why this defendant is guilty is because competent evidence there was a point that the justices were making with opposing counsel today that the trial court seemed to have relied on these co defendants statements because he pointed out things in his trial court's ruling that he wouldn't have known had these codefendant statements often brought out by investigators but if you look at the record that's simply not true in her statements themselves she points out specific things that she would never have known bad nothing to do with the co defendants had she not been there and specifically some examples would be she knew that the cab driver had an accent she knew the cab driver was grass she knew that the cab the cab color was g she knew that the cab driver had been robbed none of those statements came from anything the investigators posited to her that co defendants told that the trial court did not rely on these statements that were said to investigators instead with the trial court was able to rely on was the end of the defendant's confession where she stated she did indeed know about this plan one to two weeks prior she saw the guy in peterson's apartment in the closet she saw her go she knew the owner of the car heist idea that we're going to we need to rob an armored car to get money whether or not she thought that it was crazy at the time she still knew it and it still became to and she was able to give an address for a cab to pick them up she's accountable when she sees the gun with peterson in the cab and decides that's when she's going to tell the cab driver where to drive to she's accountable when the shooting is over and she helps us present victim's wrongs and she's accountable when codefendant statements that were allegedly made to investigators investigators told her people contend the most damaging part of this case was when she admitted to her complicity in this crime and that's when face of that defense counsel had no choice and looking at a confession but to do the best that he could with such damning evidence see first position that it was trial strategy to hear the entirety of that confession without reaction so the trial court was able to you suggested that you you alluded to the trial judge stating that he would have denied them over while we all agree that trial judges presume to consider only competent ever felt morally should that presumption also extend to the his knowing what would have been offered in a motion to suppress how can how can you make that statement without knowing what would have been all i would think first i would have to be obviously be a case by case this is what happened to me or it could be show the confession and determine the voluntariness at that point i think what the child court did here was recognize that showing the confession and either motion to suppress or the trial would have r but this is a strategic decision and it was a brilliant decision i mean when he's faced with having nothing but a confession how do you get around that and this was his option and this is what he did benefit his co counsel doesn't necessarily mean that they're not the same videotape i mean that's not the codefendant brown's videotape is not the same as defendant he's videotaped so what's on that videotape could have been redacted a request to be rejected by journey is as important as the destination and what he needed the court to do was to be able to see her repeatedly saying i didn't know this man was crazy i wasn't willing i wasn't throughout without putting her on the stand rely upon is the record i mean i mean affected effective a sense of counsel is difficult for people because we're trying to invade the mind of what defense counsel is doing on pretty much the opposite side aisle for us here the only thing that we can do is we can look at the record in the trial strategies clear throughout the records so the record says to us that the trial court recognized that defense counsel his client got together and decided to withdraw the motion to suppress for whatever reason what in fact is a council decided to promise one deficiency to prejudice obviously people believe that the council was not deficient but we still have the prejudiced wrong and defendant can't rise to the level of prejudice here when everything that this trial court found her guilty of came from her own own mouth in fact and we talk about her confessions there was some mention of part of her confession being noncommittal and that they were a series of essentially was part of th well because defense counsel was ineffective in asking for the mission of the tapes it was an unreasonable strategy at trial to ask for the mission of entire videotape he could've done several things if you wanted to show that the statement was involuntary he could pursue the motion to suppress which we actually don't know what could have come out at hearing and emotions press we know that there's the videotape we don't know what testimony would have been there so incriminating statements my opponent indicates that because joyce denied being part of the plan when she was confronted with the codefendant statements that actually played into the defense counsel strategy but actually death to shows that the only the incriminating evidence putting her with these people in this plan came from her codefendant statements counsel argues that this isn't wasn't hearsay because they weren't introduced for the truth of the matter but they relied on that way by the trial judge when he said that the person provided only information that somebody who was part of the criminal enterprise could provide counsel says that she said that the cab driver had an accent a cap a screen that he wore glasses but they were not denying she was in the cab those are incriminating admissions those are things that happened that she she was in the camp we all know she's in the camp but the actual incriminating admissions that put her in this plan came from the codefendant statements which the judge must