all these charges involved very diverse times places and ins and the major charges which he was convicted to charge involving as it was really apart from all the other way late shift between the two of them which and then there are some other incidents allegedly which are also current probably provision of alcohol you know women and sexual bond with young women that occurred in march and april just or this is all cover case in which you're going to be tried not only after that charge but the charges involving the other girls with providing the alcohol bond we buy late night parties all this stuff what the prosecutor is going to do she told him it was a very accurate prediction if you read the record he's going to go out and paint you as an awful person and the weakness is on some of the individual chargers and the witnesses on t the the usual answer claims of ineffective assistance is trial strategy and power prosecutors and courts have often been very imaginative and very in discovering trial strategies to support various defense counsel decision in this particular case in fact there are different strategies suggested by the duff so that would be the point of that in this particular case your agreement for it was returning from russia and i put this on the record on that day he had had a chance to have an affidavit done because there are no conspiracy and that's in fact what she did as you know your honor a conspiracy theories are the hardest to make and the hardest to prove they're kind of the last resort not the last refuge of scoundrels but the last resort of said i might be wrong about it he said i don't really know what the article standard mean but i don't think it was argued all i ve said i think it's all right i don't think it's arguable that she made a mistake that her strategy was wrong made a mistake thirty four pages is certainly very deliberate but on the other hand if you take thirty four pages to refute a post conviction pichon isn't it are you both that what's in the petition should not be number of players in any event much of what he has in the ten years i think that the prosecutor may argue the second stage things that defense counsel may say under oath at the third stage but you kno not all of this other evidence would come in anyway the action that question is no and there are a couple of reasons for that first of all you have to look at depending on the car place so that those yet s g however it doesn't involve any alcohol not whatsoever it doesn't involve contact with any of the other students except peripherally with nobody ever took it up so you know if the jury should reach out that there my response is in the record the other point is that even let's assume for the moment that other incidents are verified as required by the c i cheese sections one twenty two dash one p and one twenty two dash two and essentially defense claim here is well because the circumstances he wasn't able to secure  affidavit but yet that's a consequence of the fact that he fled to russia for three years where he makes the complaint though that there aren't any legal notaries in russia that's actually his fault i mean it's not a situation where petition so it's a situation where he's essentially asking for the relief that would mean that he or his petition would have to have met the standard error in fact every single plate of this petition would have had met the standard that would've tried it second stage review upon the state's filing of a motion to dismiss for example and so it's for that reason that the state does analyze this petition as if it had in fact reached the second stage of view because really what the procedural posture in this case is different from a typical pro se petitioner because the defendant had counsel has both finish and petition was prepared by and signed by the defense attorney so it's not a situation where he's simply trying to get  type of it would be a situation where if this court remained in for second stage potential for ceilings but yet his petition is plainly and insufficient to survive second stage motion to dismiss and of course we do  we could repeat this exercise at some future date but essentially that i think that's why i was trying to respond to the fact he's claiming he should get a third stage evidentiary hearing on any or all of its claims and that's reason why seedings however there are strong arguments against the merits of of this issue particularly the trial strategy arguments defense claims that we are we are casting this trial strategy as being this big conspiracy where the defendant characterize basically only it any strong means of contesting the fact he had a romantic relationship with somebody who is fourteen just turned fifteen to clearly like the e mails they presented where he talks about kissing and things like that so essentially he's going to try to under say he has to try to explain to the jurors why and why the evidence he had a romantic relationship for several months with a fourteen fifteen year old he did not however according to into the third interview and the third interview was prompted by the fact that the defendant was now arrested what is he rested for he was arrested for the allegations of misconduct that alcohol and finally as to the other girls not extreme so  ially the allegation of the defense was what prompted her develop if she's trying to protect your early because why would she now say something that would actually get him into really serious trouble and the claim was well now she she is now angry she thought as you thought she was the only girl a defendant and that now she understands that there's all these other girls that he was having interests with and that is the reason why according to the defense that she made  that the jury's might perceive that he's plainly guilty of something because he's involved romantically with his students who are under age and therefore seek to convict him even if his case is arguable that he should be acquitted however rather than run that risk of going all or nothing about the prosecution to slip in the other charges and that gives the jury an opportunity to compromise an important right of defendant that he would not otherwise have had if he insisted on the staffords and such a situation where some hypothetically competent attorney could have decided on a joint trial whether carroll bison his trial counsel had desired that or not it's not really the point because even if he were to get a new trial has been acquitted on that on the attempt charges so those would not be retried and so with respect to the hearsay allegations again some of these fears they went to the term to use charges which he w first time i've heard this argument from her that i know their space law on this point which says that you're not suppose treated differently i would ask leave of the court to file supplemental authority after the argument just to make that clear because there is supplemental already on that point i don't want to mention anything you know in great schools or argument but i could demonstrate that and hopefully i will do that by motion so your counsel is right and i stand review that we ask for