relationship because of comments made by defense counsel during the mars and hearing that started in open court in front of the prosecutor and continued in chambers after the trial judge realized that this is the sort of thing that should have been kept confidential the defense lawyer not only argued against his client that effectively totally abandoned him during the marston hearing insulted him called him a liar and  then said that he would find it extremely difficult to be a vigorous advocate on the defendants be happy new things about the defendant that would make it extremely difficult to continue to represent him in a vigorous manner defense counsel also reported to the court to sort of corroborate this that he knew that it had been trying to maintain private counsel for a number of months and defense counsel sort of viewed himself in a backup position to this retained purported retained attorney who eventually was not allowed to come into the case so there's some indications very early on that defense counsel may not have been completely prepared there was abundant evidence on the record of an extraordinary amount of animosity between defense counsel and the of talent and under under which this sort of breakdown an adversarial process can come up and obviously not all of them have been before the united states supreme court and i think for obvious reasons there are very few instances of defense counsel sort of getting counsel can be undermined by the lack of a relationship between counsel and i think this court's precedent and the other circuits precedent is certainly persuasive in  have to say the supreme court has said if there's a complete breakdown in adversarial process that's a six minute violation and i think that if the lawyer and the defendant stopped talking to each other they will defend it would have any confidence in his attorney and more and that would state a six minute clean under of death and under chronic so then again we unfortunately because there's not a lot of these cases we have to look at what this court said in the past in part what are the sorts of situations and we have a number of things going on and i just disagreed with that and i mean i think we have to look to what the supreme court has seen and what we've seen doesn't really bear on what with all due respect you the the problem with that in my face that argument from the attorney generals of my other twenty two fifty four briefs is that if you don't have a relatively close factual scenario that's gone before the united states supreme court then basically the defendant the criminal defendant who's cream court i agree with that but i think the fact that i think the side when you bring the court is made it awfully awfully clear that it's is there a law that counts not ours i understand that to a certain extent you want to but i think you know if you look at for example williams detail you tailor which of course is one of the big cases about how does this florida the same work and if you look at the broady they say you know if you guys didn't get it the first time let's just make it really really really clear it's our law that counts no i understand that but  view that he wanted a continuance granted so very close the attained return he could come in and he would no longer represent fletcher so in that sense he was not arguing against fletcher making false representation in support of that accusation there's no united states supreme court law that says that the attorney can not tell the court that these representations are false now in should not have used the terms lie and lie and he should have simply told the court that the statement by titian or that petition had not been introduced to an investigator was false it may be just a difference of somatics but certainly edwards was entitle to or perhaps even under a duty to accurately tell the trial court what had happened and what preparations he had made in this case there was no indication at all that mr edwards was in effect to have trial there was no breakdown of the adversarial process in this case he provided effective think your honor with all due respect there was more in the interaction going on with mr edwards in the trial court than just saying you know he's not telling the truth when he says he hasn't met my investigator and he said this is a burden on me to have to represent somebody like this it's going to be hard for me to be a bigger is advocate knowing what i know about him and watching him and observing him and the nap that goes far beyond just answering the court's questions which are fairly routine during marston hearings you know what have you done how many witnesses you interviewed it's things to that respect and is this court that in frazier's once you have some of these sorts of derogatory and demeaning comments that every communication in every action by the lawyer after that point can't trust anything at all that happens after that in fact you know we have some of these i've made the allegation in my brief that it appears the trial count i hadn't prepared to examine some of the defense witnesses because he  been taken by surprise now it's certainly possible that one of the reasons he was taken by surprise or appeared have been taken by surprise by what some of what they said is because he wasn't communicating effectively with his client you know so i think the problem is i you've got a look at this initial incident where the lawyer himself contributed to a complete breakdown in the adversarial process poisoned his relationship with his client who was the best source of information about how to try this case and how to try  affectively and then say that poisoned the entire rest of the process and tonight the defendant his sixth amendment right to counsel and i would just close by really encouraging the court to review the briefs begin to consider the creditor because i think that