calendar don't feel obligated to use all your time that's an admonition to everyone the first case for argument is united states forces tribunal the morning your honour's and judge rounds and counsel man please the court i am lindsay obviously will answer any questions at this court has first of all the first rule for any trial counsel it is side is preparedness without preparedness knowing the facts the evidence the law no councils able to make a tactical decision it is clear from the record here your honour's that mr trevino's trial counsel did not know the facts we don't have to speculate about that it's on the record mr hanson and defense of mr trevino centered on the fact that two other individuals m know or mr martinez arrived to pick up the money and then they in fact were one of the two of them supposedly the source of the drugs which ultimately the jury convicted mr trevi mr hanssen did not prepare for this case and because he did not prepare for this case he brought out highly damaging and it admissible evidence against his client counsel here is what is troubling me  it may be true that he did not prepare we were will soon that we assume that that the some of the evidence that he brought out was should not have been brought out  that the question is that there was deficient performance to do that and not to prepare but the problem with respect to ineffectiveness is always to show that it would have made some difference that there was prejudicial in light of the contours of the entire case and generally that's not possible to do on direct appeal because you don't know what else could have been unearthed in in the c i think that in terms of the prejudice i've got several comments first of all the testimony that mr hanssen elicited was so damaging to  how any jury could put it aside namely that at least two of his brothers were drug dealers were methamphetamine dealers which is what he was charged with and that mario ha for the first witness what the jury heard is that my client comes from a family of drug dealers and that he's got prior law enforcement contacts and that in fact his brother had the indicate that he was unable or in table ball challenging the government's evidence that was presented in any kind of confident way if you bring in such damaging testimony because you haven't prepared how are you confident kind of investigation or actually bringing out additional facts mr hanssen could not have done that because he wasn't prepared you know what the difficulty is and you know you can you can it is easy enough to sa guilty you know your honor i'm not talking about that i don't think so i think what i'm saying is that chronic focus is on the sixth amendment right to competent counsel because it goes to the very the adversarial process and when you have counsel who brings in horribly damaging evidence because he's not prepared because he brings in evidence that it's very difficult for any any of that most diligent jurors and i'm certain as jurors were that they would not be able to disregard that then the very adversarial process has broken down and that's in response to jack schroeder's comment which is that we don't you don't have to argue that the jury would have now found it but if there's no evidence that that mr hanssen bra again they would be minimal contact between the the lawa lopez telephone and i will reserve it when it is that i truly believe there's ineffective assistance of counsel here and maybe not just this trial the majority of cases criminal cases are resolved as this court knows before trial in resolve cases you have to have prepared counsel who's willing to discuss and advise a criminal defendant of the strength of the evidence and the consequences if this court is i think i don't think any of the claims that the court that that the defendant brought forward now shows that he was ineffective your honor on that claim i mean as a matter of law and i think that's right your honor i mean i think of counsel on this record and i think that's that's the difficulty even the claim that counsel presents about the law lopez phone asking the revealing the brother what the record shows is that immediately after mr hanssen expressed surprise and asks to speak to his client at the next break and there was a colloquy with the judge about the bailiffs the marshal service not allowing him to speak your orders the strickland case points out part of the questioning depends on what the defendant has told his counsel now if the defendant leaver trevino told his counsel that he had no connection with la lopez and that it was it was an effective line of questioning not knowing that officer mccotter would know the connection necessarily know what he told him we don't know that's that's exactly right your honor and i think and essentially what what what what the court has to find here is that there's just an incomplete record there is clearly not you know effective assistan is required that that that he that there make the defendant show prejudice on this record the evidence was circumstantial your honor but it was overwhelming you know the telephone connection and the to the is aware i put in the record there is in the record at pages thirty nine thirty three to thirty nine of the first volume of excerpts of records a series of letters between mr hanssen and one response that the fact that the sentencing case had to be continued twice by judge shot because defense counsel failed to have the pre sentence report read in spanish to his client who