my client the one thing the one thing that counsel did remember about my client that he did shrink difficulty understanding the trial process my client was this is his first criminal trial he was a cuban and agree with me english was not his native language counsel specifically  testified quote that my client had a very difficult time understanding basic concepts about how the trial was going to work and what different things amount my client quote had no understanding of the process and i kind of i then we did not even understand  he quote broke down very very simple things and process these into childlike claim my client thought he had been convicted after opening statements this is not somebody who understands the process and the testimony shows not only that my client was not aware of how this right but the first time that he learned it was in the middle of trial after the state had rusted basically councils sprung this decision on him saying ok you can testify if you want to but you should without explaining why you should without discussing with possible testimony was and again this is keeping in mind that this was without any prior discussion of what his testimony would be counsel i doubt lee just told him not to testify presumably because part of his his strategy but it could have been a strategic decision because he didn't know what my client was came up was in the middle of trial knowing that my client has trouble understanding these things and there's no disputing the record that he did not explain that he did not explain why he was telling my client have to testify my client specifically said that he was trying to tell his attorney discussed this before trial never met with me for trial the first time i learned about this was in the moment i had to make the decision with no preparation i felt as though i didn't have a choice because i had been prepared to testify and counsel is pressuring me not to testify and the record happened in council specifically said that hinted not remember again he didn't run for his interaction with my son he said that while he he said he agreed he probably told mike fleiss not to test the extent of his testimony on that but he didn't actually decision that a that your defendant should not testify you actually should have to know what their testimony will actually be and again their records undisputed that they did not discuss this before trial so when so when counsel except i don't think you should testify there's nothing the record  process in order to properly exercise his right to testify or not testify as to make not only a knowing decision that he has the right but an intelligent decision and meaning that you have to understand the consequences of of exercising that right within the cont discussed it or trial knowing knowing that my in my counsel and my client specifically said that was one of the reasons he waived threats testifies that i've never been prepared to testify we've never discussed this right before and so when it sprung on me in the middle of trial i didn't know what to do counsel's pressure me not to at the evidence you're hearing which he did not then that might be that make sure that he made a strategic decision but again it's only my client is the one who can make that decision whether or not to testify counsel can decide whether he thinks it's a good idea but only my client only if remote defendant make that decision they can make that decision making make an intelligent decision not to testify if counsel doesn't know what they're going to say and if counsel and if and if and if you really rely only on counsel's just and public brushing them off and just saying don't testify without explaining why it's annoying a criminal defendant from the illinois u s supreme court cases has to make a knowing and intelligent decision to do so and the person in best position to help our client help a criminal defendant make a knowing intelligent decision his defense counsel and here we have a case where they never discussed this right inside the center console underneath the tray hidden underneath some paper towels so my client said you have said he didn't know about the drugs they worked his drugs he didn't he wasn't a drug dealer you never sold drugs he worked two jobs eighty hours a week and court didn't apply the law and and there's nothing in the record for the circuit court to find that there isn't a reason a probability of a different trial there's nothing in the record that directly contradicts the idea that my client didn't know about the drugs in the car not first i would want to just briefly talk about certain exchanges that occurred between defendant and defense counsel and defendant and the trial  suggest that in many cases the appropriate time the most appropriate time for a defendant to make a decision as to whether to testify here is after the state has presided it's had its obviously to make this situation a defendant should know what the state evidence was going to be permit estates have defended with no that's the state's evidence is going to be his of course after the state following exchange occur between the trial court and defendant a trial after defendant indicated the defense counsel would not present evidence likewise if you wanted to be a witness no one can keep you from being a witness you have a right to testify if you want to you understand that offended yes after that discussion you decided you were not going to testify defended yes is that correct yeah i'm not quite as tough as indicated defendant prevent the exact situation that we have here and have attic eight can contention that defense counsel was ineffective because the failing to properly is arguing basically is because the court said in joshua b that the defense counsel should do this that this means that counsel which in effect if he didn't do obviously there's a difference  you are argument is that the trial counsel failed to properly explain all of this to hear him evaluate why he was giving this advice so that your