say i've got a shot at sparing the guy from the big the big conviction like hearing the big sentence by admitting what's obvious to everybody in the courtroom that he was present at the at the robbery but it wasn't he who shot at the eight i think there's a couple problems with that argument first of all he never for his client that's acting like that's that's a different issue not use the fact that there was no concern to the strategy to put it under the chronic braless but with no consultation i think we have to assume on this record that there was clearly and it has its behavior with notification when all of the record shows that he said i'm going to concentrate on these other parts of the case well it shows that the attorney may stand that he's focusing that i can focus all day on one part of your argument ok you will focus here and are focusing on one part of your argument you are not conceding what you don't talk about before this concession to the u p s robbery we still come back to whether or not it would have made any difference in the end the president's analysis i would argue that even no notification given the fact that this you look at what counsel did in the context of the entire case if there had been only these counts and when the well you know was trying to do the court found that counsel concession was a trial strategy yes and he used it in the context of having tried to consult with the client time and time again and the client's not saying don't do it but just kind of listening and doing nothing i don't believe a decision really turns on the fact that council was notified i don't focusing on the gun charge going to tell the jury explicitly that you my client were guilty of that robbery it's a reasonable trial strategy because it may be a reasonable trial strategy but how is that not part of the duty of the attorney client privilege i'm looking at it from the to the court and next and says there is a duty to consult and obtain consent in the case of a guilty plea are you saying that nixon has nothing to say about what happens when it's less than an absolute plea but it's a confession of guilt for purposes of the trial in the federal government's position nixon holds that there is a duty to notify in that case the duty satisfied but i don't think the ultimate decision the next and that is the application of strickland prejudiced standard rests on the fact that there was  that even if counsel performance was deemed sufficient for failure to notify his client that he was going to concede of guilt there has to be a showing of prejudice and identification that there in court identifications were inconsistent with the fact that they had been unable to accurately describe the defendant or take him out of breath the defendant argued that  while defendant was guilty of the u p s robbery there was no evidence indicating that he knew that paris was going to bring a gun to the robbery and use that and urged the jury to find it not guilty of the one twenty with the report that any arch wrote which indicated that thomas was the last one to get into the vehicle and you could infer from that that he sat in the front seat in addition he argued that there was no evidence that  simply to get a better deal from the government so i would submit that there really was no spillover in light of the talking that was the defense lawyers position if you look at the evidence there was the same car the same black man many things that were constant jury obviously to disbelieve this approach well there were there were differences in how the witnesses the argument that we shouldn't be expecting guesting counsel trial strategy which at the time he made it was reasonable given the very limited options he had in this case  the thing is that it's easy to focus just on the one on the p s robbery can't write that of course was not what was in counsel's mind he wasn't concerned just about that count and it wasn't just that count that was before the jury he was faced with a presume prejudice based upon the fact that that count is then completely eliminated from from his ability from a defense standpoint and so it has how do we draw the line between when it's chronic where there's failure to consult and stricklin where there's failure to consult i think the consultation with the client would take most cases in the district that arena but i think in a situation like this where it's just out of nowhere   by his attorney we also had his attorney basically renouncing his constitutional right to jury trial without knowing a voluntary waiver by mr thomas and so while we can look at this purely from a