were having trouble getting some discovery and finding witnesses and getting witnesses there i would argue that and i would argue that that is not on point to the question of whether or not the defendant's acquiescence and the defendant's action media had the money to get an attorney so the trial judge appointed the public defender the public defender specifically said hey i don't know that i'm going to be the person representing him and so i am specifically to determine whether or not the oceans caused the way current it now is just because of the state doesn't appear to ever be ready for trial in this case so tell me where those motions cause delays certainly there were things that had to happen on those motions but this case was never a pastor from the states who should give if the state was never there say they were ready for trial who was over these motions will be going to trial tomorrow and will say repeatedly said that they were preparing things for those motions and said that they are hired ross who was comparing the response to the motion was dealing with the police and remember it was a constitutional issue under very recent statutory change so it's not like t f actually it was not  aware of what you're talking about but the record at the time for the at the time in open court if you wish to told the term the state has an obligation to bring the fund to trial within the term so the trial court mrs ms ross is preparing for the motions she's going to argue motions is that mr shuman is preparing for trial he ends up losing a trial partner none of this should be doable to the defendant and if it were the record should motion is stricken it's crossed out in the order says these cases are continued to the next court date by agreement for status in jury trial that's what the cannot be attributable to him if he tells him if he tells the judge i'm not agreed to have him on that date i want to hear any did not contribute yes it's very simple sort of divine you can have her successfully demand trial under a question of the definition of delay and therefore it is a do no moment here let me ask you that kordell also says this with respect to what justice purposes suggested to you the court said should a defendant wish to employ section one of three five a as a shield against any attempt to place his trial the outside hundred twenty day period he is free to do so isn't that what happened here which was him and made sure that the date was well within one hundred twenty days and then took us like thirty five days i think but certainly the fourteen days that they agreed to which again with that two days that the original trial judge from his attributable to the defendant and the subsequent charges for who knows attributable to the state and those are consistent because we defer to the trial court in the the standard of deference is flipped there so that explains some of the cases like you as you said this trial to me is already running amok unless the record reflects that the defendants agreed and everybody understands that the times told kroft court well if you look at the documentary doesn't reflect you know the courts as a documentary could reflect the time between the fourteenth in december twelfth would be attributable to the state this discussion between the court and council didn't it kind of a state into thinking that all of that time from september ninth to november fourteenth was told me that the conversation is inconsistent with the court's later finding that that whole time was attributable to the state how do you reconcile can pick an earlier date so the question just as firm as asking you is by leave it with out a demand for trial is the same thing as an agreement with a demand for fr trying to figure out if we're going to challenge so motion or not so that first continues of the trial date it was still uncertain then no to the state come in and say that our corporations are being delayed by this this motion and so things for different matters i would again call attention to these second two sentences in justice carter's dissent in the fair says if there is any term of art in the area of speedy trial it is the term quote  that cost is something else to be put back like a motion even when there is no time for trial it is a delay the delivery of the argument i just don't get it because that would to trial today will you have to go to trial today i don't care if you don't have a lawyer you're going to trial today because you're debating trial you're going to trial your argument is it any time you agree to any day even within the hundred twenty days it's automatically attributable to the said outside the hundred twenty days it isn't too late and my position is that that's contrary to the other law the courts the courts so that any action by either party that moves the trial date outside the hundred twenty day window qualifies as delayed for purposes of th motions who got up and said judge we can prepare for trial for that day because of these extensive motions to the front filed so so and therefore the delay should not be attributable to also they present any evidence like  who caused the delays and so there is there's precedent for having the having live testimony to establish that the defendant cause or contributed to a delay was there any such find whoever he says talk to him and got him to change his mind or whatever that doesn't mean that and the only that day you can go on because you have that witness there is more investigations to be done i would argue just the testimony of the prosecutor is whether or not there's been compliance but i still demands trial your position would be there just thirty day time for it is attributable to the fandom not of the state which are correct even though if the state were not to provide discovery with the period of time in the case of the scheduled for trial before them because according to your argument previously the defendant would have to demand a trial i gave one that regardless the delay would be attributable to the defendant or not to the state on a date a different could say we have not gotten discovery and i would say that any date from now on is attributable to the people until we have discovery indeed originally the defense counsel can say final i would ask for twenty days beyond when discovery is complete there's no