day chasing terrorists and al qaeda across the world the complaints about no resources you're telling us that this is a united states attorney intends to incite this man for three to appear after he's already think convicted of the underlying cr into what i was and practiced and also as a trout judge was to make sure the defendant is always there at those sorts of proceedings so that he can't say i didn't know when the think was this he was right there with  pretty well established with the district court system discretion with regard to grand jury subpoenas for defense attorneys because of the potential for interfering with the defendant's sixth amendment right and then it looks like this district judge said well you've got two other sources of the information the attorney's statement and i think was a memorandum or an affidavit and that she told them the date and recall right which i mean not a lot of cases is that the defendant doesn't have an absolute right not to have his attorney so subpoenaed to appear in front of the country well well it's at least with respect to client and especially bra of course that the question is it's up to the jury to decide how much evidence is enough and we would submit that first of all the public defender's office that's true but that really doesn't speak to the issue before us which is whether the and the judge is supposed to make a balancing kind of judgment and you're saying well one thing he has to balance is that on this we have all the evidence possible where for the grand jury will reject an indictment like they do maybe once in one hundred or one thousand and it's so rare and then when i look at what the judge said i looked at what you referred me to he says he does use the phrase current to but  doesn't use it at the beginning of the analysis he uses it in the in the middle east that's because first he says will have the attorney client relationship and he says that will be severed and then he says because the court has found the attorney client relationship would be severed the government must show a compelling purpose but it's not an exclusive focus on the government's purpose instead he says this fact intensive inquiry requires the court to balance the grand jury's need for testimony versus the interference that would have on the attorney client relationship and so it looks like even though he uses the word already this is balancing and or you're saying is well maybe this would be the case that i've never actually seen but it could happen logically that the grand jury and say the lawyers only own statement in the mother's own statement that basically convict her  and went through a very careful balancing analysis both in the initial ruling which is that added excerpt fifty three through fifty five and in the written opinion on the motion for reconsideration and the grand jury matter as a separate matter was before him the two records were combined as you can see from the excerpt he was fully cognizant of the discretion that he have while to use the phrase going need i don't want to take up any of the court's time and that's fairly but i do think it is important to have these speak on behalf of a lot of groups i don't want to take of the court's time unnecessarily but i do think it is important in addition to the institutional war that this case appears to represent to at least have a word put in for the fact that the individual whose interests are most at stake mr casey here are doesn't fact have a vested interest in not having an existing relationship with an attorney he's come to trust disrupted by the government by unnecessarily creating a conflict that that requires a breach of that relationship and that's what need to do it i mean that's the balancing he's trying to go through he goes the extra mile for the government and he found that here it was unreasonable and there was no need there was nothing for that testimony at this time and for record in the underlying case the case as part of the record here then it would show that there has been a continuing battle in the underlying case over the application of and of course that that compounds the inquiries that you have been making about is this really a case in controversy because obviously the case was clear that if the government proceeds to obtain an enhancement in some