or that in these conversations themselves are now further in the conspiracy and the judge said to him on june thirteenth i have to confess when i got these minor sheathing was i was going to hear some response on the hill look for a human all of these one hundred percent you are absolutely correct but it isn't the defendant is responsible for his attorney's conduct grip that's correct so what a difference to the offers to he it but that's his right in that it will not necessarily you can have these hearings during trial and you could you could take each statement separately you could take one statement at a time during the trial with the other side go but mr what was akin to a motion to suppress he took the trial date off the court calendar and cars that should be delayed on iran even if that particular motion had been resoundingly within a month and it again because of all the dates floating in this case i'm not exactly sure when that basic motion was resolved if it was result within a month is it the state position that this case could have been tried to years later and it still would have been his responsibility because he took it off that first date no your honor and i believe both the people and the court and i believe the key thought that it's a case where juries had terms and the defendant withdrew his demand and it was in the middle of the term and the court found that setting it for the next jury term was reasonable even though there was a current jury term pending and reasonable that's not a reasonable date in order to accommodate the trial court the defendant and the purposes and intent of the speedy trial act in this case we have a date that the following month in terms of trial case and they're each you with reference to those conversations went down until june twentieth when the judge finally decided the defendant wasn't responsible for the act other than the wiretap operation there were thousands of calls to go through and i believe that at the trial judge mentioned i am i believe in the january sixth but it could be the december thirtieth court date you know the state doesn't have to make a pretrial motion necessarily dependent these all in the state did and of course because of the complicated nature more profits were needed to fully understand the relationship between the defendant to the other co defendants and whether state's got something pending the defendant has the right to object he is not stalling he is not waiting until the seven days before trial or forty eight hours before trying to do this it is ongoing all the way we're tends to court did make them to make that's comments that raise are statements that could be in the course of the trial the record does not reflect again the record bears out that everyone was proceeding that everyone would be going to try to trial on january things in having hearings on these things come to the fore this is how is this just the defendant's problem as it was in nature because that's essentially the ruling in majors the defendant caused office how is this just the defendant's problem while in major leaguers it might have been solely the defendant but the case for us says that if the defendant is in it an think that that might be a factor in circumstance that the court could take into consideration when determining whether or not that delay period it's trivial to the defendant if the people's decision that the fact that the defendant filed a motion which cause visit because of discretion and based on the court's ruling and the surrounding on facts and circumstances it's people's position that the court didn't abuse its discretion he cited i'm number of factors i'm he looked at right i've got to decide this another in seven days which the court did on june twentieth a decision was made so i'm going to give those seven days to the defendant against the defendant because i'm objecting so he is in some way contributing but it  on june twentieth we still have seventeen days july twenty second and july twenty ninth are outside of seventeen days and he said he would move  certain hearsay conclusions could be testifying to say that the defendant experience a downturn in this business neither one of these have anything to do with coconspirator statements i  to peer down these statements whether it be because it's listening to what's happening in other words or in this courtroom with reference to other defendants or whatever the case may be estate is still tearing things down and if we get down to it i know their number