far your position is the language is critical in other cases that some interchange between trial counsel and the defendant in the court is expected there's not an argument from the state on the merits that that is what about what about the state if if the court is listening to a claim by the fine and good for example hypothetically judge my attorney did subpoena records from  couldn't the state say judge i do have a record they force me with copies of those materials would it be fair for the trial court to look to the state for that kind of input i think that there should be the subject of the evidence for here we were just looking been discussing whether or not the state has a right to participate and i'd like to take us back as to where we are in the trial process where we are in a trial process is post trial motions now neither we nor the see the guys think of the trial and let's see the judge doesn't notice for example the state's putting out evidence where everybody's looking at slides in the state one of the state's attorneys up there presenting the jury's looking the judge's looking and his state's attorney the sit in the two issues that were raised here on appeal the alibi witnesses and the jury where there was not a never serial presentation by the state as to the jury waiver allstate's  have we are prepared to impeach these witnesses because they had already said something totally contrary either in the trial or answered i don't really recall where they had in their statements but they were reading them teach them this is not an inflammatory remark it's a it's a statement ensue when we ask are these the only two issues that we're concerned with in this case and yes they are because while you're looking at the effect of what happened overall in this in this pretty critical hearing the only two issues book no it's the defendant's choice that should should the defendant have at least have the opportunity to approach the court and have counsel say  you have that opportunity to approach and say judge it was a serious case involving murder of a six year old child there's a lot of emotions i'd rather have you decide the case but the defendant was only ninety seven they were not isn't that correct so the question here is your instead of arguing to aspirate now that you believe these claims are meritless tell us why he conducted an appropriate frankl here because he of guidelines that came down in the rule twenty three opinion from this court decided to be even more thorough but there is nothing that the judge did that cause a defendant not to get his allegations me ask you this just that time doesn't the just the time that this took i think it was for once the appointed counsel working on the motions and then four months later he because the truck or had nothing to look at the police decided you know i'm going to appoint counsel and then four months later based on gilmore says i pulled the rug out from under access to the brother and sister and there and now they're coming up with completely different statements that they had made to the police when shooting occurred the sister statements different than i was a sister  petition based on time and they say why this is because if it seems like there's some merit in the kitchen or to the second stage it's the belief that is officers of the court the stealing look at the actions on one side and the state on the other side acting as an advocate that's just fundamentally unfair when the defendant is put in the position of having to advocate to his own yeah against lot of critical here and that says there are three sources of information the trial court may rely on and i think you can read that to be excuse some limited communication with the trial counsel defense counsel