did have a screen around the trigger he did pull it out and pointed out and there was testimony from an officer officer damon that that by itself is the definition of right was because if you know how to handle firearms you here again these would be possibly intervening in a kidnapping are of all restraint simpson didn't do it he picked up the chair and approach so under those circumstances brief i haven't read that issue and i do believe it's worth it it certainly can't be brought up at their time and i think it also goes to show that it wasn't an obvious defense that could have been presented to you know to a lot of attorneys including a p sense i think both sides in the on that includes the state side and my brain we got off a little bit in terms of you know this is brought up at the post trial motion ineffective assistance and we started talk of it almost in terms of crank oh another ten cherry hearing picked up on in terms of whether this was just so inconsistent and maybe now believe ability you have to defense is going that you know it was the better pick to go with the accident or whether in fact there was an issue of trial counsel not knowing the law and the court found in favor of the state of course on that issue is really the physical evidence now that i've been corrected again leading to many cases you forget who got  considerations probably made by the trial concept which is that you have that fact and if you say well i was aided with my finger on the trigger point directly at him well then you really don't good you know you basically have and in defense of yourself i think it's an inconsistency there as well as credibility problems this defendant had prior statements to the officer officer deadman and in those statements he didn't say that he did this  defense he didn't say that he did it as an accident so you're already asking the jurors to kind of find that the officer was wrong or that somehow there was an omission you know that that defendant wasn't thinking or something of that sort but you're already looking at it inconsistent statement with one defense and now you're going to say well not only that but he said something else that is inconsistent with yet another two months he's offering here and i think it undermines his credibility overall as to what is occurring and i think that's a consideration but to you know to make a decision as to which is stronger of these defenses and to go with it but we are in it in terms of prejudice and the reason for that is because i mean this is the entire  theory guilt or innocence here and i think it comes out better to look at in terms of prejudice but that goes if there's no showing of prejudice which is our position that certainly goes to the fact that then this wasn't an unsound trial strategy by said that i think is incorrect and the record will show that he heard voices but in terms of like a self defense argument there's a reason why you would bring that and this because it's really relatively weak in these circumstances and that very weak i w really thinking or reading that somebody is in trouble that he's rusty rushing to her rescue we have a consistency already and that he can see his self defense argument had made it and he goes out there and immediately determines in taking prescription drugs or some other type of drugs that he will only add and so therefore under the circumstances the fact that he was doing this as long as he was not going going directly at them was not reckless and there was this argument in regards to that is it that his girlfriend she says that the night before there were threats that at that point get a gun and kill the stopper again suggesting that i have it and then the evidence at trial is that  aggressor in the defendant point a gun at him and he's trying to scare off his father by saying things that aren't even true but trying to scare him into putting down the gun and saying ok let's come home to th post trial motion was somewhat of a hybrid of a post trial motion and divestiture i guess of a crank call hearing do you think that there was a sufficient inquiry by the trial judge to determine whether or not you didn't hear just an argument what he heard was a girl crying he had met her american division recognize her voice stop let me go please please please let me go i want to go home please please please please stop stop  i presented both the affidavits of peter diaz and christina group and they run contradict it obviously the only thing the defense counsel could have said is either i didn't say those things but there's no evidence th between the attorney in the trial sure it was not pleasant i mean to say the least if you read i didn't go into all this but there is hoping it was not on was not pleasant for a number of reasons and the attorney did some things which the judge called for an ethical  been talking about trial strategy but there's nothing in the records of work that because it's the attorney never raises it in terms of we can't do it because of inconsistent statements we can't do it because the jury w confused no he says you can't do it unless you say you intentionally pulled the trigger you can't raise a defense defendant believe that but the case wall contradicts it contradicts it directly the proceeding out to force