well the lawyers and people persisted please tell us who you are who you represent and how much time you'd like all here i'm not sure that he had all of his medical records he had them at one point given to a trial attorney and they were uncertain of the trial file he was able to get some of his medical records but not all of them before he filed his of them to show his medical records relate to what issue the motion to surprises his ineffective assistance claim as my lawyer didn't call me at the suppression hearing to testify to her or more specifically kind of surprisingly is where to call any miranda motion and mr moffat who was representing the defendant said judge i'm not prepared to rast at this point i and then over the tri hour over the lunch hour evidently he talked to dixon was given ample opportunity to prepare for their hearing if he wanted to have witnesses present he had the opportunity to do that and he didn't do it and we said that was fine yes and we also said i we find the tr done so in a larger sense that the review as a whole was necessary because one of the arguments that mr moffat the public for a trial made very opening statement was that when this is only came forward because there was some sort of reward offered and then during the course of  that was a reward that survive it now put those witnesses on a trial for or alternatively if there's nothing in the trial file any evidence whatsoever with the statements indicating that there was a war then it was incompetent said there was one told the jury a jury trial there's that the public defender at trial to let me turn it over to the public defender i've p c and we've had cases in my office where if for whatever reason we're able to use the trial file were able to easily get it from the public defender's office it's possible that you couldn't further one of the reasons he also not here to criticize that i'll say the rest of the answer is i'm sure it was annoying it was afforded a way that's what was being told but she had reached the point prior to him asking her off base where she did read everything she did look at the trial file she did look at the castle stated i live record that there were points to be race yes in amended the titian right and he's not having access to the same records that she had access to the head review yes be understanding how the defendant heard the judge rather then maybe spike looking very clearly and concisely at the words stated by the court i would say yes but then also and that it was taken away from his perspective and that's what we're talking about answered just silence question if this might what do you think the consequences work if the trial judge or circuit judge judy in this case to make it clear to him what the consequences are at the time which coun his waiver wasn't violent terry because he was denied access to his file his argument is that his waiver was involuntary because he waived under the impression he understood now well what the court said to him and verse on swas there's a lengthy discussion and part of what the court said is what you heard from counsel but as the discussion continued the port clearly said to him when he asked again i get access to everything they got access to or had access to right and the part applies to him i don't know exactly what all these documents are so we would have to have a discussion about something that i don't is the same discussion in which he has just announced to the court that he wants to go pro se where the court has accepted his waiver and she proceeds to tell him this is a this is after he's already stated he's waving language is confusing and he's not an attorney and you know if somebody mentioned discovery he's asking for other things as as counsel just said that's discovery let me ask you something from the state desk discovery desk if you own trails record your own attorneys records is not to discover he was an answer discover he's asking for something different and it seems to me that the state is combining those two concepts of discovery from the state with asking for his own records  does say i will have the defense redact the reports they have and i will get you copies of that if you get those some of them yeah ok so you think you know not all of them ok but that's not the end of the discussion he then repeat the question but other than that meaning the rejection i get access to everything they had access to or had access to and the court says i don't know we'll have to have a discussion about that i don't know and that and said and then he said in response to the court's comments as long as i can get the documents and the stuff from the state you know i need that they get any witnesses receive any special treatment for their testimony any time so he's talking about what he wants to get from the state right it's cracked so that if there is a mix of things that he wants to get that his attorney add things that he wants to get from  attorney and in the defense trial file material obtained from the state it's still in his attorney's trial file so i'm still having a hard time calling that discovery he's not asking for new stuff from the state he's asking for stuff that his trial attorney had in her two boxes is two boxes and in preparation for the defense this is his attorney it's his his attorneys trial so the attorney from the state the police reports you can't say that defendant can't get the police reports on his own arrest just because they rejected from the police in the state they're still and his attorneys trial file that's right say i still think that there's a huge distinction between trying to discover new stuff that his attorney never knew about at anything that his own defense attorney had in her or his trial boxes  preparation for a trial those same things that it took four years for this attorney to read i still think there's a big distinction and to call he calling that massive things discovery is a mistake we need to differentiate between his trial attorneys material however their trial a defense attorney got it it was still part of the defense plan and strategy review whatever and discovery which would be something entirely different and i can do that so to be clear it's the state's position that during the course of this discussion he asked for things from the trial absolutely entire trial which would be everything that has it and you agree that he should have gotten it based on the rules of professional conduct we would agree that he probably should have had and what if that included things that they had to fence attorney already had collected from the state including don't report statements affidavits however the stuff is put into a trial file that they made a deal with the witness our position with any document that's contained in the trial file regardless of how they received it subject to the showing a police report by with no rest report be subject to rejection if there's that's generated by the state if there's any information like contact information about the witnesses or something like why would the why would any statements that he made  prosecution and the underlying case his lawyer never gave him any of that stuff no i don't think that we can assume that and in fact i think that based on the record of not only the underlying proceedings of those convictions proceedings we can be certain that petitioner sa a number of these documents that he was familiar with a lot of these documents if you look at the hearings that took place and during the conviction proceedings  titian or file a motion for discovery there was a full hearing in which petitioner went through all of the documents that he wanted explained why he wanted those documents and what he was going to use them for and the court went through each and every one of those documents and ruled whether he had shown good cause and what's interesting during the the hearing is you can tell the familiarity that petitioner has with a lot of these documents he's explaining exactly what it is when he refused referring to one report and he says you know it's three pages and it's written by this detective and this is what it says so it's clear that he's seen a number of these dark things seeing them doesn't mean he has it not receive conviction or gave him three handwritten seaman's three grand jury transcripts a final report that has to do with the shirt that was recovered that darlene mitchell had washed or not wa position but as far as the issue that's before this or is that his waiver was voluntary because there's first of all there's nothing in the record that shows that he went forward pro se solely because he was under the belief that he was going to receive these facts and if you look at the postcondition proceedings there's no point not one single mention from this petition or in the record where he says i went forward thinking having been promised that i would receive the suffering and the end of the hearing where judge bresnahan went through every category of documents that he saw and at the end of that hearing she said i'm going to have the state give you x y and z and he said i don't want them i or him that's right yes and this is this if you even read the record you're familiar with the record this was not a shy defendant there were numerous times that he spoke up and said you promised me this and i haven't gotten that for example he told the court you promised me an in camera inspection a back room and i haven't gotten  that this is a defendant who filed a motion for substitution of judge and race forty seven different allegations of how he was being mistreated by the judge and not one of those forty seven allegations as she promised me the child  promised me discovery i haven't received it so where is the demonstration in the record that this defendant went for pro se on the basis with the understanding that he would be receiving discovery it's not there and that is the issue that was presented to the sport and everything that it is in the record as far as the issue of a voluntary waiver shows that this petitioner entered into going pro se in this case with a full understanding of the consequences he was told by the court before going pro se you won't have access to some of the best attorneys that there are out there you won't have what why did you want to go he indicated that his attorney did not want to go for it and i was issues that he was tired of waiting and so for that reason he was going to go forward and represent self and in order that he needed to  biology and that maybe so but the question was his claim that that's correct and he was never promised either the trial file or the discovery by the court in the court in this in this case under took with great concentration examining why he wanted the discovery why he wanted the documents that were in the trial  found there was good he had shown good faith for some of the documents and turned those over this was an airport they did everything it could to prevent this defendant from going pro se and he chose to do so and there's nothing in the record that supports