me please the court my name is linda fallon i represent clifton this is a first degree murder case in which the lawyer conducted virtually no investigation let me ask up more questions this is the one where three him they were when you're right that was the lead so and right blame it all on the guy that that pleaded cracked now what matters to me is if i understand this right the second guy and i think his weeks something like that ok and as i understand it at that point bob's lawyer said to bob we've got a whole different case here because instead of the two of us blaming it on the third guy that rolled over you know have two witnesses against you whole different case we need a continuance so we can do some investigation and bob said no let's get it over with i wish that's right i wish that's what the lawyer had said your honor unfortunately because i think mr palmer would have agreed to a continuance and fortunately what the lawyer said to him was not it's this whole picture has changed i'm not ready i've never had an investigator working on your case what he said was that it was maybe advisable for a continuance it might be advisable to continue the ca because the investigator told him there was additional investigation that could be done he says in his hearing testimony evidence or hearing testimony on page six ninety five of the know our he said i think what i told but mr bob was that further investigation might develop some additional witnesses that sounds like a lawyer like way of saying exactly what i just said just saying it a little in the post conviction relief application what i'm looking for is some showing of prejudice for not doing it like affidavits or something if only the un investigation here's what you would have found out presented to the jury and the jury convicted him of conspiracy which means to me that that was that if he was present at the scene and have any understanding of what was going on and number there are so many different stories these two people have given they are tremendously biased if the investigator had presented some of these witnesses there's a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different the other thing that they failed to uncover which mr bob sr right after the verdict went out into the stores community it's small indian reservation community you know rural nevada you know about it day and a half she was in her friend were able to collect sixty character letters on behalf of mr bob that said this guy is a drunk and drunk are sober he is not a violent meaning he would never do anything like that at the same time those people said henry even come is violent he's involved with this drug complicated drug situation here and this is because he wanted to go forward with the try all he also found that mr morrison and i made a strategic decision based on his  have people who actually testified for the prosecution at trial and he looked at a report from mr m's more years investigators but as far as we know he didn't ever actually copy of any of those reports post conviction matter also study spoke to members of the bob family including mr bob himself regarding this particular matter he testified that he had complete discovery from the state regarding th homicide and in addition to that he had only mr m's complete trial file and of course he had the benefit of what mr m's investigator had that was the testimony that writer like yes mr m ultimately rolled over and decided that he was going to testify against mr bob cannot but can i get from you a description on a on a point that's important in least in my thinking if i can your honor of course can you summarize in a paragraph the trial testimony about the of then it's leading up to taking lee out to the desert specifically bob's involvement in that book what ok point us in the record where that located first of all it was mr bob's truck that was being driven through out this particular matter they went to i believe it was joe's tavern they went to  the arrowhead lodge they went to the winners corner they were very tired of places where and if they were let me get one is there come a point in time where according to the trial testimony they agreed green they were going to take variety of things relating to mr bob's involvement not the least of which was his vehicle they'd been bringing together there was discussion about killing the victim in this case mr levy there was testimony actually one of the points that was tried to be made was that mr levy or scuse me mr bob was passed out in the back of the truck francine conway testified that one of the other people had indicated that charge her however there was other testimony from other witnesses that mr bob was not in fact passed out in the truck when this happened and indeed even if you were to accept that testimony from francine conway conway excuse me the testi was given it doesn't say exactly when so there is also the the test that there was testimony in the trial from someone that bob was passed out in the even if donald ball the defendant's brutishness brother had been discovered by mr morrison and put on as a witness at the trial it would have been cumulative of the conway testimony that's my interpretation of it your honor thank you let me ask you about a different topic unless you have more to say in response to church auctions question i think that's basically covered it ok my question is i ask them and your adversary about prejudice because strickland requires two things that it requires conduct below the appropriate standard for the defense lawyer and it requires prejudiced so i said where the affidavits about what would have happened if there'd been an adequate and a continuance and an adequate investigation in your view that your adversary conceded that she had not briefed that but said that if we look at pages fifteen through twenty two and thirty nine through forty seven of the excerpts we could find now what that means is it's kind of a looking issue and i don't know if it's to come up on the rebuttal argument or if it's going to come up in internal deliberations but i want to give you an opportunity to be heard on it before it comes up behind your back so what about prejudice i appreciate that you extent mr bob was told about the investigation regardless of what the investigation showed there simply isn't any prejudice in this particular matter because first of all regardless of anything that they have alleged first of all they haven't proven that any of these people would have come forward and testified in the manner that has been alleged there was nothing like that in the state polls conviction matter as i indicated previously it was mr bob's truck that was used there's testimony that he drove or there's testimony from multiple sources that he stabbed the victim there's i'm contradicted testimony that he tied the victim up after the stabbing and drove the truck and drag in the half mile to where the body was found there's testimony that it was his knife and his own admissions that would like the court to note as well that there was the testimony  who said well yes mr bob does in fact have an eye however the knife that i've seen we have with does not match the description of the knife the prosecution says was used in this homicide there's also the testimony  but there was testimony from the start of course which has not been challenged that mr bob had dried blood on his hands so if you look i think all of the testimony and even if you were to give me it was on this beauty that he was caught red handed but part of it is and in judge kleinfeld talk about this is that the situation changed it really didn't change because simply because mr m had now agreed to testify against mr bob theory of the case for the defense is still the same blame it on mr ben koma blame it on mr ben combo's mr ben problem of that actually did this and the idea or the suggestion that perhaps they didn't what mr and was going to testify to i think is a loser it best because they've been working with mr m to figure out exactly how they were going to blame mr benn comma for this and of course the problem with out when the witness had the conversation within coma not that clifton was passed out at the time of the crime there there's that interpretation too because what had happened the testimony was is that eventually they ended up at francine conway's place where they took pictures afterwards and mr bob was in the photograph i believe with mr m and mr ben com and that would explain that would explain that comment at that particular aspect during the course of the trial there's th that possible interpretation but it doesn't change doesn't change the result even giving mr bob the benefit of everything else he has failed to show any prejudice thank you for the additional time  of people there are many letters presented to the trial court that send saying that's the same judge who heard the post conviction action that explained he had a reputation for violen bob had a reputation for being nonviolent even when he was drunk to the point that people expressed shock that he couldn't possibly have done it and those are all human letters that are in the excerpt from  at least forty to one hundred and in about one hundred twenty harry become a had a motive because of his involvement in this drug trade mr bob did not have a motive one quick question can you tell us from the record how much time elapsed according to the testimony between the commission of the murder and the conversation am so within a few hours ok thank you thank you very much