memoir why should the source of the information have any effect on the discussion of the jury pool of the extent to which that information case the information came from the defended itself himself in the other case carpenter it came from the from the koori then i want to know why this works on a matter if the jury has the same information because it is the weight that they would prosecutor doesn't that will lend weight to this statement as far as the jury's consideration of the consumer but i don't think so i mean first of all part of the existing law at the time of the instruction  no specific reference to that particular statement and i don't believe that what the lawyer was saying war was his denial that he did it don't pay attention to that  for consideration of all including jurors are presumed to follow their instructions here soon you prefer just a few moments to go to pennsylvania want to believe you see you've suggested as you have in your brief to correct one statement i made to you initially concerning the parole i want to caution you that it is not the poor old were really that can commute a life sentence only the governor can commute a life sentence the court head led the jury to think otherwise and then the court went on to the instruction that it's irrelevant and instruction consistent with the previous president in case law that you're familiar with interesting we the supreme chance he will get out on the street they're going to make sure he shouldn't have done the only the only way that someone with that much testimony about his violence about and there's even worse they could have come out but anyway what did come out was that this is a guy who was violent who is going to have these episodes during the rest of his life and the jury if they think there is any chance of this guy getting out on the street again if he gets life in prison i think very clearly overpowering but in the siding whether the jury deciding whether to give him life in prison with no chance of getting out for the death penalty or not decision between those two outcomes very much worry about my question is isn't isn't that choice given to the jury very much skewed if the possibility of life in prison they think includes paroch i don't it is a violent man who committed a violent crime on parole and the possibility that they'd like sentence means have a chance of parole i think is going to very much influence the jury's determination whether to give him life and i understand this for a fact finding is concerned with the pennsylvania supreme court only in the p c r a proceeding found took place here as a matter of historical fact there was no determination here but there was actually we've already talking about the difference between the factual party and a legal determination as a factual falling to bits of the records found in this conversation took place and then they decided that nothing should be done about could in effect give advice from counsel that goes to the issue we're determining here today to does it not your money as it is it effective assistance from your counsel if you have a violent defendant opened up to the jury the consideration that you may be paroled but will an effective coun no you are asking us to assume that the jury weighed in white vs death may simply have allowed to completely bypass was that it was so isolated so fully that somehow this jury that had sat there during the trial of a homicide case involving three her rigged killings would somehow not jury's decision there's no evidence of that unlike carpenter and they have the burden of proof you can't just assume what was in the jury's head they have to they have the burden of proving it is limited to give you another distinguishing factor in c has to reach this conclusion that certain words uttered by a defended on whose credibility was no made that bad really those words are so serious that it doesn't matter what else the lawyer was trying to say they don't believe him when he says i'll be out on parole why did the lawyer just say that i think the clear statement was more powerful and broader the exit because cross it said i restored and these two lawyers were totally inexperienced this was an overwhelming case and that fact probates this entire record it would be good specific ways the  hindsight trying to determine specifically what council should done in the midst of what we own though is the hurly burly of trial and i will say more than in any other kind of proceeding side case because any of us who have tried him in pennsylvania know that sometimes you can go immediately from the guilt phase to the death phase in this case i think maybe there were a couple of days but they inform i think he announces under effectiveness who is that judy to investigate and they just dropped the ball on that they did not from a want of a hat and had they done that they would have had an enormous amount of evidence which would be very important for the jury it is very different the problem all of us who tried cases have used to try to make the jury understanding and our client and particularly man thank you very much the question here is what would you expect somebody to say with respect to what the sensei options were i mean there are a lot of people say about the case that you sometimes wish they would but what we're talking about he didn't think it was more innocent well on the facts the only thing about the facts that would make it not warranted would be counsel actually believed there was this was in the french quarter and this was really a statement of a legal principle is it's did that that actually doesn't matter though because once the statement is made whether or not there's preparation and mr cross then surprises them and once the genie is out of the bottle counsel has an obligation there is no confusion it is absolutely clear from what mr cross said this that he believes that he's eligible for parole after thirty years and the fact that it cares and correct and the fact it goes that not only did he get pool after all the five years but that he was unsupervised after six years and so you get cool in your unsupervised and then you can use this murder while he's on parole we're talking about nine hundred eighty two which what you have as the instruction the follows up is completely non responsive to the statement that mr cross has made this case is worse than coroner because the jury had no need to ask the question and we also question this is do you argue with it in your brief that there should have been evidence of the terrible childhood the mistreatment the abuse and also there should have been evidence of his good adjustment to prison his helping the prison authorities which is why he was released and that that evidence if the jury had been able to consider like without parole or death might have persuaded the jury to give him life without parole and i think that is the prejudice that they think they should have considered that but a lot of that was not decided what that what this man did was due to his terrible childhood and he does it just to prison or would they simply have said well this is an awful guy who cares went in prison i had taken her with measures and that's not exaggeration she had an easier to allow prison guards to know about the potential tax on all of that he was that he's always had good conduct in prison somebody who has a favorable is just going to that's why ultimately his his sentence was reduced on there was discussion about this other additional that it specifically from his two sisters would look closely at that additional evidence there's a lot of things in there that are not attention to it then i would agree with you it's best to let it go but the difference here is that the contention is that he should have been corrected that doesn't draw attention to it that say it was