later i'm sorry you said something about the defendant not being as not having a previous projects but that's not what needs to be done right the government house to prove your defendant was not prejudiced you don't have to so who did the district judge obligate the guy being that you have to show it that there was prejudice or did the government have to show there was no prejudice but in the district court do  case there was fifteen to ten defendants all but two of them have not only been indicted sentenced but have also completed their sentence the only two that have another one that's doing life and the he could have used as a defense to testify who were no longer available again and that's or getting dog we don't know any might very well be impossible for him to  surely he knew if he had a defense or not i'm sorry he must have known if he had a defense your client have a defense to this charge he pled guilty to i automatically tolerable simply because the accused cannot demonstrate exactly how prejudiced the government here is left with the principle contention t makes a pretty simple argument and that is the audio and videotapes of his criminal conduct persuasively were about the presumption but that doesn't exactly prove that he's not prejudiced but just because you've got the evidence to convict him that's correct but i think your burden is to prove that he was not prejudiced because he has that witnesses to use in his defense so something's the matter here we have to persuasively rub up the presumption of prejudice and it's the government's argument simply l already said that the tape recordings do that but while these organs are simple this case is a big deal i'm not aware of a case in the country where a circuit court has ruled that the government has been able to persuasively rip up the presumption of prejudice defendant no sir but it's the flip side of the same coin because the tapes of the two instances where mr a lock and a hand so drugged the undercover officer because the takes conclusively show what happened on that day the government's can rebut the presumption and then you proceed to the next step of the analysis which would be how was the defendant project just well i mean i don't know how the government like in this case could take every conceivable defense of the defend can't possibly or in many cases can't possibly know what his defense would have been it's the government's position that do the audio and videotape of the tr but if the government cannot rip up the presumption of prejudice in the absence of any hint from a defendant on what the prejudice mob that the government can't rebut the presumption of prejudice on these guys that it simply cannot ever do so and that's not at that point came forward with prejudiced then you still have a speedy trial violation that did not have to be dismissed who did the district court put the burden on to show prejudice of being was there a presumption of prejudice and the government had to show during was not  because there were audiotapes of the incidences that were still available for use to see whoever party however even either party wanted to use them is there anything but go ahead i was there anything you're referring to these tapes it seems to me the tapes show the crime there on the tapes that would aid mr ware like in his defense not that i'm aware of oh no then god doesn't meet your burden and then maybe as grandmother was going to say he was at her house or something and now grandmother the dad that would way to to overcome the presumption of prejudice is by the government showing how strong a case they have against them i guess is what you're arguing that no matter how he was prejudiced the case was so strong that that he was not prejudiced because because the government's case is still very strong and there's no way that any prejudice that he might have suffered would have affected also i'm not aware of any cases because i can find any cases in the country i'm not saying they don't exist i'm just saying i couldn't find where any court has ever held  in what the course would indicate and what the questions from this order say that there's no there's no real presumption here at all there's an absolute bar based on this fact of the government ever going forward and there has to be at least some circumstances where the government can persuasively reply to this presumption in when there's no doubt as to what happened at the time of the crime and there's no doubt of that here the presumption of prejudice in the absence of any hint of any sort of prejudice has to be able this delay it's unfortunate as i said earlier you know there's no cases in the country that whole the government can rebut this presumption doesn't mean we can't do it there's a couple of independent and compelling reasons why there's no case for a dark the case law on this issue in the first is in the barker court sort of touched on this tom is not the government's friend we have the burden of proof it is not the state the obvious beyond a reasonable doubt when you get four six eight ten years down the road the government's ability to meet that how burden of proof is in many instances diminished and that results in when the defendant is arrested late in time like that it results in the case being dismissed or if it's the government still can prove its case it results  negotiations that work into a guilty plea of like most criminal cases doing there's no appeal of any pretrial rulings in the second in that in that reason why there's no cases on on this particular issue or very few of them is because negligence or accidental behalf of the government running for a fugitive is a very rare occurrence the government's got no benefit to the lay arresting somebody years there's no hint it did that on purpose in this case this was an accident or a mistake warrant got dropped that conduct ceased until the mistake was learned years later it was reentered into the system and he was subsequently arrested that's a fact that we had before if this had been a four year delay we wouldn't be in this day what happened on the most critical point of the investigation is that that's where we are the government's ability to prove this case has not been the minister at all but neither has his defense not below not in the response of the judge's order again that often it relates to rely solely on the presumption of all of the government believes it based upon these facts that there has to be some set of circumstances where the government can rebut the presumption persuasively you want to have audio and video tapes of the carter and as i've said earlier it's not so much how he was prejudiced would have he could not again i thank you thirty a court appointed we appreciate your