to christopher defense counsel said she had it done yes christopher if he had received those offers and christopher said he had not confused i can only imagine about that exchange the court asked defense counsel to explain what was left out the part about he wasn't adams house when they came in they visited apparently defense counsel spoken to a woman who was actress first house it's a little unclear if it's a girl from her sister who had me a ben but there's no evidence in this record the council conveyed that plea offer to the defendant now we have the additional problem of there being a plea offer made prior to that by the state the record is silent as to the terms of that plea offer we don't know what the offense was or what the year range was that the state was proposing but the record seems clear that that offer was never convicted chris so after hearing this information in core the state asked her the court asked the state to explain what the plea off e offer at that point or requested time to think about it so i have two different parts or two different responses so that the the response directly relate your question is christopher is an attorney he isn't any legal training so when he hears the state say of the offers available until the jury walks into the courtroom and then the judge calls the prospective jurors in the courtroom based on the statement that christopher made in the p s i i which was that he wasn't helped in the right way by his defense counsel and had he been he would have taken the three years it appears that he may have believed that when the jury when the veneer walked into the courtroom that that offer was no longer on the table at that point and the record doesn't indicate like a dozen other places that there was a continuance taken or that there was a recess taken in between the time when the state explained what the terms of the plea offer were and when the jury was called in the corporate so you have a sequence of events that seems to have taken place and fairly rapid succession where the defendants told a three off or a three year offers on the table until the jury walks in the courtroom the court confirms that defense counsel conveys that offer and then immediately calls that we hear into the courtroom if i were in christopher's position i wouldn't think that that offer was available anymore now the second part of your response my response your question relates to the other plea off a good there isn't any evidence in this record in fact i would argue the evidence shows that the offer was never can be crossed we don't know what that offer was but christopher received a ten year sentence for delivering twenty one grams of cocaine in this case that is a very severe sons and it's very possible that whatever the first offer was that the state proffered it and i should back up for a minute his range was three to fourteen years it's very possible that this initial offer the state offered that we know nothing about and which wasn't conveyed christopher would have been less than the ten years with going back to the shore of of what was actually invaded in or as part of the ineffective assistance argument  the defendant serving that he would have taken that offer a yes vote is a relevant as what the prior offer would it then the same he would have taken the one that was communicated in court it is relevant insofar as if this court were to  but if this were to find that for some reason the defendant had an opportunity to accept the plea offer that was discussed in court and did not do that then the first offer becomes relevant because we don't know what the terms of that first off and if those terms made available to the defendant a sentence less than the ten years that you ultimately perceive that is an offer that he should have known about and should have been able to take what this the supreme court's recent decision  it can be and the reason it can be is counsel has an affirmative duty to convey any plea offer that were formally made by the state to the defendant and that was not done here christopher and in the p s i i didn't didn't defense counsel say you've got a three year offer but it's if the jury comes and it's gone that seems to be that he's got to make a choice right then and there the it all comes down to the sequence of events here the way the transcript represents is that the  the court asked the state what the offer was and what the state was explaining what the offer was defense counsel was conveying that to christopher and then the court called the beer into the court room him my mind it's a question of did you even have an opportunity to fact that he hadn't received the offer before the court asked about it we defense counsel made that representation that the office offers had been conveyed right and in your client chimes in and says and i recalled that he said a sister but it may have been a girlfriend or whatever but that he had they talked to my sister and she told me about it and so i don't think it's really safe to assume that he didn't i don't think the record really proves that i told her what something like that not those exact words but certainly something from which you could infer and then i don't think it's accurate or necessarily demonstrated by the record that there were other conversations between your client and defense counsel before they came into court because defense counsel is saying yes the opposite were conveyed and i i respectfully disagree with that the reason being when they had the exchange prior to dire and the court said have you convey that often to the funny yes christopher said no she hasn't defense counsel didn't say i talked to him last tuesday i talked to last thursday and i was at his house the friday before when geier about this the only thing she said was i conveyed that offer to him your honor i was at his house last friday she may have been at his house last friday that his sister may have said hey you're trying to stop by last friday but as an attorney  as a criminal attorney if the state has made a plea offer to my client i'm going to convey that to the client i'm the last well one of the last six i'm going to do is go up to a family member who probably has no legal experience may not even understand the the case  phone is going through and say oh when you are you know there's a three year plea offer on the table i mean talk about a word or here's the thing that side of that sometimes believe it or not clients can be hard to catch up with and you're dealing with family members and you're trying to that your client know what's going on you want to see your client you can't find your client and so you go and you tell a sister look the state's offering three years if he if you want to take this he needs to get attention me needs to have my office or whatever so that's kind of the flip side of it but i would be interested because i haven't seen that portion of the record that exchange in court of course is is very important as to what exactly what defense counsel said and my memory from the brief seem to pretty quick pretty clearly shows that that offer wasn't you know part of the importance of this claim is the remedy we're asking under law for stupor for it to be sent back for a hearing and to get into some of these matters and that if it is a setback for a hearing  ol agree that the defendant was and finds the offer prior to the trial sorry and so why isn't it sufficient that the defendant had that opportunity to accept the offer before the jury was bronnie i'm not aware of any case that says you have to have a certain amount of time to make up your mind or to decide there i'm not aware of any case that says you know and i'm not trying to be facetious any case that says there must be five calls the jury and understood defendant was about to be tried by this judge i don't want to upset the judge i have an attorney who's going to speak for me the judge of the attorney doesn't speak up and ask for a recess or continuance or anything else the judge which i've seen that scenario but before where it's discussed in court but what i normally see in the records that i read this is additional step which is the court says counsel you convey that to the plea offer have you conveyed the plea offer to the defendant yes i have defended have you decided what you would like to do in this case and then the defendant says i'd like to you know think about a clique should we take a recess i could think about the plea offer none of that was done here it was just a very quick succession and again if i'm a defendant the situation i'm thinking the offers off know i understand that's the way that things work it moves very quickly but where there's evidence of the record that that was never conveyed to the defendant ok i found what i was taught so is it accurate that  there are a host of problems with the situation like that that i can foresee that would we would want to avoid and so i would argue that that wasn't sufficient even if it was made sr and so in court that once it sufficient  baiting court enough for the court without giving the defendant opportunity to voice whether he wished to accept that plea offer or not i was are i would argue is not sufficient but then we have the additional problems that actually occurred during the trial proceedings if you will the state was permitted without objection to ask every single juror that ultimately sat on christopher's jury whether they believe that drugs were a problem in their community defense counsel didn't object to that now that here as i've explained the brief alone is capable of being reversible but when you look at the cumulative impact of these there's it is frankly kind of odd because you have this jury that's been seated all of the people who believe that drugs are a problem in their community and then during the evidentiary portion of trial you have then who is the informant here and one of the officers testify to hearsay statement that may then testified that he has bought drugs from christopher once or twice a week for an extended period of time then you have a police officer get up and say you have been told me that he's bou drugs off of the defendant at least twenty five times so the problem here is you have a dearth full of people who believe that drugs are a problem in the community now hearing that the defendant is prolific may be overstating it but he is a regular drug that on the video he believed he saw a bad containing more of the controlled substances that we were purchasing that was not seized from christopher it was never found so again you have this cumulative effect of a jury being for people who believe a problem their community hearing that the defendant sold drugs on these twenty five different occasions and then hearing from a police officer that christopher had additional drugs in his car at the time of this alleged buy that were never found then you have the additional problem of this isn't given his state of what occurred that day and then the police officers coming in and he probably bolstering that state by saying you know when he came back to the police station after the selection by he confirmed all of this with us this is exactly what he said so the jury didn't hear what happened from then the lone person that was in the car they heard it from the police officers who work in the car who didn't see this drug deal take place and had no business bolstering the credibility of that and you also have the police officers i deem christopher as the person driving the car though they had no better perspective and no better ability to do that then did the members of the jury that were sitting there in judgment  this narrative during closing argument the state may i just finish this point i see the night my time's expired the state brought the jury back essentially the boy dire and told the jury you listen to the audience remember each and every one of you said drugs were a problem in your defendant is raise a number of questions here on appeal and i really don't want to waste a court's time by addressing those that the court isn't seriously concerned about so there is one or two issues that you want to draw my attention to him i'm happy to address it and the absence of that out take the first one that he addressed which is whether or not we have reversible error because of the lack of defense counsel sharing with your client the existence of a plea agreement i don't conceded that that's true i think that she testified that she attempted to do that she had accomplished that by having a conversation at the defense all days prior to appearing at trial whether or not that was successful in her conveying it to the sister or whoever who conveyed it then to offended i don't think that that's the important issue whether or not they were that was error or not there has to be an opportunity at some point to correct an error if errors present and that's the procedure this commonly employed by courts and which was done in this court is trying to bring to the attention all all parties whether or not there is an offer on the table and i'm sure all of you have some familiarity with this process and what was done here is not unusual there isn't any suggestion and a record that he didn't have sufficient time to contemplate it the record is side so i suppose she can interpret it in any way you wish but how these things are normally done this judge takes you know leave of the bench counsel discuss this issue with her client and then he asks are we proceeding to trial the emperor's being here we are obviously the plead room has been rejected by the defendant and he wishes the trial there's no suggestion that the the opportunity to accept a very good plea agreement and decided not to and then after the fact being convicted of this offense i don't know understand how he thought he could possibly avoid a conviction given this evidence he now twice about it you know monday morning quarterbacking perhaps i would have been better off if my client or of my attorney had beat me over the head and insisted that i take this plea offer i'm sure that she made a pretty strong argument i don't know how she was thinking counsel could overcome this evidence i mean this is a controlled by the evidence hardly gets more overwhelming than what is president this case so when i pray that this case was a strong case for the people i should think so judge i mean there's always little holes if you want to try to magnify them but i have seen a lot of controlled bison this is pretty common but there are times when you have control  facilities are able to observe the entire time you know and there were some issues with that here would you agree i would agree it only encourages you have the word of the informant who is a drug user trying to work out a case and does it it really come down to his word versus the defendant and officers really couldn't wayne and pam much based on what they see fortunately for the state we don't really need too much of the officers visual identification we have a videotape and i would disagree with defense counsel's assertion of what that video tape displays i watched it it obviously shows the defendant i obviously shows that at the end of engaged in a drug transaction i don't know how anybody can watch this video and come to the conclusion this nies not this defendant is not guilty that's for which he is charged so yes there are instances i think a videotape is pretty difficult to overcome but it it's not present at all controlled by us in fact most of the previous ones i've had don't have to deal tape that's kind of the hammer  usually requires the officers themselves to say yes i saw the defendant himself i saw the drugs transaction or whatever but with video tape now i mean the guy had a wristband that even if there is an audio recording of the events as well so this conversation and i don't know how to defend it thought it was going to overcome this evidence i think it's a very strong case and this ingestion that the defendant had some motive to cooperate yes  necessarily suggest that by putting innocent people in jail you're going to do that he was supposed to cooperate so i guess you could argue he wanted to hide or he didn't want to give up the real people that he was purchasing drugs from i mean the testimony at trial was that the officer said seeing this particular c i mr pitt purchased drugs on multiple occasions and and that knew him to be a drug user so the idea was we will not prosecute you producing drugs in this particular instance if you assisted us in some way it didn't necessarily suggest that in the absence of a conviction he was going to be charged all he had to do was be of assistance drugs from in the past that could do so good in the future so i suppose you can make the argument that perhaps he was hiding his true source and offering this guy up to all scapegoat i don't see any evidence of that brought out at trial by the defense that was offered was it wasn't me and i wasn't selling drugs in granite point one grams of drugs relatively small quantity drugs so it was conceivable it's possible that he could get it but there was no evidence of any motivation oss leap to use this particular fended and there's overwhelming evidence of his guilt my view that videotape doesn't eventually say ok was that in accordance with the rules of evidence if you deem that as a prior consistent statement judge i can see it as being potentially problematic i don't know that it was actually a prior consistent state that rule of law warmly and a written statement by the witness was on the stand and it's normally brought out and cross were redraft attempting to bolster that particular witness statement this is actually a statement by an officer as to what he heard now you can argue that that's a here's dave save me it isn't out of court statement but i don't know that the purpose of the hearsay rule number one is actually to prohibit available to defense counsel for cross examination so the entire purpose of the hearsay rule is really kind of a void because the person making out or statement is in court is testifying to that statement and is available for cross examination there's also exceptions to the hearsay rule if it's deemed to be hearsay and that is were these officers actually offering this for the truth of the better asserted to really offering in an instruction on the jury and by and buys that it wasn't being offered for the truth of the matter in a perfect world there would have been eliminated instruction if in fact your hip in a prompt objection to that statement but just because there was not i don't and i'm not sure the objection would have been that successful it's more of a background you know if the defense counsel was not tonight the opportunity to challenge this statement by the person who is alleged to have made and i think so that's why we have it so perhaps everything's not done as we would prefer it in hindsight but rarely as a trial accomplishing that  feat on the whole if you look at the strength of this evidence versus the types of objections that are being made now at best it's harmless error what of mr wilson briefly an objection but that seems highly prejudicial particularly coming from you and sophos or what the police officer was reciting what had already been  if in all fairness the ensconce a did have an opportunity but i mean i guess emotion and limit the is what the court suggesting should've done i think the evidence is obviously being offered because there's challenges  here the defendant said that he was not helped in the right way by his counsel because it would take him three years and it was in the p s i i which the court is required to review prior to sense of the fact so this was something that was brought to the court's attention and something i would state in agreeing with justice or the white pointed out that the evidence in this case was strong for the people i believe was was what the state said and i point out if that's true it's largely because of the errors to move by defense counsel here if strip away all of the prejudicial material that the fans council should have objected to that she didn't and that was then let in what you're blast away is the testimony of been who was a convicted felon drug use working off the case for the police and i would argue that the state is wrong when it says that he had no motive to help the police here obviously the police are saying if you could muster assistance we'll take care of these charges pending against you doing some results here otherwise they would have made that offer to him if they didn't think that he could find people who were engaged in the drug trade and possibly have that result  lines of statements that were provided when they got back to the police department if the jury had any question about who to believe in this case whether to believe that an order or not having an officer come in and having that officer be able to say essentially you can trust didn't because why after the biden team and he told see exactly i'm storing this is what he said that feels of liking for the jury here and makes it very persuasive makes a strong case for her for the state that was a problem so we would ask this conviction be reversed in his