this case was indicted in february of two thousand as a double homicide mr baez was appointed the public defender office to represent him yes and difficulty with the public defender office move for substitution of private coun that was the night that mr baez's girlfriend hired jeffrey granted to retain jeffrey granite in the summer of two thousand and we know from the record that the retainer agreement was about sixty five hundred dollars the following the state announced its intent to seek the death penalty and mr when a judge was prepared for that and he had a motion to appoint counsel under the capital crimes that occasion act that statute was in effect starting january first two thousand on april second the motion was tendered to the state the judge gave the state three weeks to look at the motion told mr baez he needed to add another affidavit they came back in april twenty sixth on april twenty six that there were two lawyers now he's asking for after i appointed him he didn't tell me that he was going out of the country for an extended vacation was mr manage a deceiver or first of all mr greenwich would have expected that the court read the motion it was a written motion mr ganesh didn't know that the motion was misplaced how would he know that the judge didn't say mr granted i don't have your motion i haven't read your motion can you tell me what's in it or that's the furthest that  was a realistic worry you know i think limit an objective standpoint there was no possibility that there was going to be along the way in the case caused by mr graham because one of the most important mitigation at all because the mitigation investigation had not been even started aggravation discovery was an investigation was in progress but it wasn't the investigation wasn't done let alone the discovery the case was a long long way and yourself here today would you agree though that mr granite is answers to questions were somewhat equivocal or not at the hearing yes i think he answered the questions pretty straight forwardly but he was unable to say more than mr tyson i would share responsibility for the case he said he was thinking about living in israel he he was not asked were you going to not return on this trip all of his testimony is he was going to return on this trip so i think his answers were pretty straightforward to the extent he could give them does the fact that the retainer was six thousand dollars raise questions about how genuine that retainer was well you know i think that it was a genuine retainer but i think mr graham is expected to get more money eventually but that problem was resolved when the court appointed mr granted under the capital crimes  because the trust fund was there to provide funding so what from mr greenwich standpoint he thought that emotion made clear that he was asking for to a boyer's and they would get funding and then that would be the end of the problem it's he took the case for short money no doubt about it but there's nothing inherently wrong about that at that time in the summer of two thousand and i'm aware of the court committee report from october twenty eighth two thousand which reports on the subject matter of lawyers who are not real seven fourteen bar council taking cases that are potentially capital cases that report had not come out at that based on specs could a case be made that a judge would have abused his discretion for allowing to an attorney to continue on knowing what he knew in this case no i don't think it would have been an abuse of discretion to have left mr granted in th case it might have been an abuse of discretion not to appoint attorney tice but it would not have been that if you said discussion to leave mr granites in the case he was qualified to be lead counsel in a rule seven fourteen if that rule applied in this case which it does not because of the date of the indictment but he said testified at the hearing that he had five full murder jury trials and eight full felony trials by two thousand and two thousand and one the fact that has never applied to be rule seven fourteen counsel is really a relevant in this case for the purposes of the judge's decision at the time it may be important for this court to say case it was perfectly normal in fact that was the understanding in one nine hundred ninety nine report and the special committee from this court that that council could take these potential capital cases and then get a fast track i judge wanted an affidavit she wanted to write in writing from him saying was that provided no see right and well he said he didn't remember why he didn't provide that he said that it was very unpleasant and so what happened was the judge said ok well i understand you want to bar council but i don't know if i can do that under the act so i'll point you now and you can come back and present that issue so the next day it was made nine and they presented the issue and i think there was a conference in chambers on may ninth when grant the judge she was going out of the country and the reason i say that is the judge three times in the findings said he said he was one of the country and he said it early in a case he'd done her t v show twenty four and twenty eight seventeen nineteen and twenty four the judge says three times he so told me he was going out of the country and this is on may ninth but she said then you need to put it in writing when you will be gone and i want to by may sixteenth is what allegedly said in the room and hearing he did not do that he just continually said i don't know hall well how long i'm going to be gone i'm going to be gone for months so is there is it on reasonable for the court to be concerned the only counsel in the case but he believed that he was entitled under the law to have to counsel appointed and if the second counsel came in it was not up to speed as mr tice was not it would have to read all the  guilt innocence discovery and he would have to manage the mitigation expert who had not yet been hired who would have been paid out of the fund and mr graham richard his decision to go on the facts of this case was in sync with the window of opportunity provided by the long course of time it would take to do a mitigation of best occasion so he testified he thought six to eighteen months that it took two years to do the mitigation best occasion it was the summer of two thousand a summer of two thousand and one to summer two thousand and three so on the facts of this case it was not unreasonable yeah i think a judge should be concerned but i don't think mr graham ish deceived the judge because the only time he would have been required to make a statement of what is a vacation plans were from the beginning was if he needed to file a motion for continuance he did not need to file a motion for continuance in this case because there was no upcoming date that need need to be continued there two and i don't think the judge was very happy about that i think the judge is at fault for not having read the motion the judge to decide i don't have the motion what does it say but the judges are not the judge is busy i understand that removed and a public defender was appointed but he had been in the case from for the last eight months and really nine months but of time he was removed he testified he had an excellent attorney client relationship with mr baez mr baez had complained about the public is asking you know announcement of we're seeking death then it's the time for the fence lawyer to say what i need funding for under the cap or cry for the geisha and so the fact that he's in the case disappointed council for a month should not make a difference here because he was really just like a retained counsel up until the time that the state asked for the death penalty just fosters is there any consequence to the fact that it one time mr greenwich indicated he would come back and try the case and then at a later point in time indicated he really meant he would come back and litigate motions earlier well is especially the fact that he did say is plan was to move away for good one  well i don't i think he said he was thinking about living in israel but he didn't say this trip now the judge may have misremembered that but gee mr graham was on the witness stand the judge was like there i don't know why the judge didn't ask him that indicated that he would have come back and litigates the motions when earlier he said he'd come back and try the case yeah the judge was focusing on that difference in language he said when i said i come back and try to case i meant i come back i'm going to get the motions we don't know that there was any motions to be litigated we don't know there was a motion to quash the statement that was filed in september two thousand and two but we don't know that mr grant to mr tice with likely to do that is it your position that it doesn't matter which answer is correct whether he was coming back is to try the case or litigate the motions because we have to give some we have to give some deference to a credibility determination of the judge very well i think it makes very little difference because of this mannish was the only lawyer in the case for the defense the whole time and if the judge had appointed him and not nice and left the men he would have been the only lawyer in the case the judge was not concerned about having two lawyers for motions in that situation going to bring the motions of press in greenwich is going to do it by himself where is the concern about having to do two lawyers then it's only when he says he's going on in extended vacation that the judge is uncomfortable both that the judge has a policy preference and her own of the she wants a public defender will now now we have oh well i can have one lawyer mr tice do the motions while you're in israel i have to have two lawyers where does that come from that's a real inconsistency and i think harping on the difference between i'm going to come back a little gate  i'm going to come back and try you know that's a fine cut cutting the hair really it's a very fine cut so i don't think it makes that much difference he always said on the record i'm going to return and pay fifty seven and pay sixty three i'm going to return and try the case he always testified at the hearing to him mr tyson we're going to work the case together beyond that he said we didn't really know how we were going to divide up things because we was pretty early so i'm saying it's an abuse of discretion for the judge simply made the most expedient the situation on the day the case was in front of her and that created a problem because now he's appointed counsel and the rule is not that mr baez is exercising some right have not entitle to he's not choosing his own lawyer this is existing attorney client relationship throughout this case the judge has said since he took the case for short money he's not really retained therefore he's not in the case cases davis and jackson in the court the appellate court said well you can't take the appointed lawyer out of the case and without consulting with the defendant because maybe defendant will waive the ineffectiveness but those asked the judge had a preference for the public defender because that's what she was used to and the first instinct was on may ninth the very first day that she knew that mr mannish was going to go on an extended vacation that israel out of the country  and she never changed from that position this is a violation of mr baez's six intimate right to counsel and ought to be an open question on a good solid locos whether it's a violation of counsel right because the u s supreme court is not a side of the case where counsel been retained first and then appointed in a capital case but even if we don't have that counsel of flight issue we have davis and jackson and burnett is consistent with four months june to the beginning of october maybe a little dr i'm not sure he said four months and he came back the mitigation report to to yours the pretrial motion that was ultimately filed was filed in september of two thousand and two it's unfortunate fact that the amount of paper in these cases takes a long time for the lawyers to read and digest and mr grant was had a window of opportunity to take a vacation which he did a lot apparently but he had other  was appointed he started out as retained in other words all the values that exist in everything case are present in this case but the sole difference is that he was appointed for purposes of a death penalty hearing and i want to retain the judge didn't think of that and she just went ahead and appointed in this matter of course he probably because he had been in that case for so long already it was the quick decision expeditious thing to do didn't have to appoint  but once the judge appointed granted he's in that case i'm protected by the same rules of davis and jackson and the other rules so throughout this case the judge said since mr ganesh is indigent that trumps all the other decisions that's simply wrong as a matter of law the judge said there was no appropriate basis to appoint through counsel in this case that's wrong as a matter of law capital crimes of a geisha neck and rule for sixteen feet to the extent that r crimes litigation act also provided the judge could appoint an attorney or the attorneys so you know i'm sorry that the business of a complicated situation that was made worse because that motion didn't get into the file to appoint two lawyers and mr tice would be working on the case and if you went and came back he would do that before there was ever any need for any next substantive court date it was only because the judge appointed him and not  now he may have gone to trial we don't know you know the judge scoff at i remark in the circuit court that he would have gone to trial but you don't know you can't predict that he would not have gone to trial i've argued cases in this court going to page county where the lawyers did a bench a bench trial and a jury sentencing he might have done that and you might find it on persuasive but there are indications in the record that there were statements from the defendant that he was like to plead guilty in this case i've been deciding this from the beginning well the side he means considering i think and the judge said i think you said that before and he said no and i say that's the best evidence that he did not say that before the judge has in her mind that he said a lot of different things which i don't think he ever said but at that point his decision to plead guilty was after mr grant ish was removed so you know it's a chicken leg that point he announced that he wanted to change his plea and plead guilty the structural error argument doesn't depend upon any of that the structural error argument says once the court remove manage without which devises consent that's  the removal of of granite at that point and the nine appointment of tice puts mr baez in a situation where he's now deciding that he wants to plead guilty and he should have been allowed to was in trial over here in the court will be here is none associate in the same firm pleaded the case he to the client guilty that was not good enough that was a violation of the right to counsel of choice or the counsel of his choice is what this court said and it's in the brief and may please assignable court my name is john walters i'm going to sustain state's attorney and i represent the people of the state of illinois in the matter before you in this case defendant baez invited want to struggle over to his apartment according to the video statement it was because he wanted to engage in a drug transaction want to try to drove his companion janet mean over over to this complex defendant and want to try to one up two defense argument and according again according to defend it they began to discuss the terms of the drug transaction but mr stott objected because defendant already owed him a considerable sum of money something like thousand dollars during his conversation this discussion straight up again according to defendant became a little animated he was waving his arms and he he called the fed a couple names he was unarmed defend it in his own words reacted in a truly hostile manner he pulled a gun out of his waistband he shot the victim twice but that did not kill mr strada so defendant reached for he had it displayed a series of japanese ceremonial that were ceremonial or japanese swords he grabbed one of them and he proceeded to slash and stab mr strada close to forty times there were twenty four slice wounds in this case and fourteen stab wounds on mr strada during the course of this during the course this is really interesting our organization against me now there's a whole history of deception with the stiffeners been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and that's that has something to do with some of the issues that were raised by defendant but in any event what does he's after he slaughtered mr strada he washes his hands and he cleans him self up to look presentable and then he goes down down stairs goes down to a parking lot to to miss mina and he lures her upstairs he says one's going to be a while why don't you come on come on up and wait there with us and he directs her to the bathroom he offers to get her a drink of water and when her back is turned to him he proceeds to place or choke hold takes her down to the ground in tries to strangle her to death but he's not successful in the course of trying to strangle her to death this is what defendant's aware of he's aware that janet maina is is saying her final prayers he's aware of that but what does he do instead of breaking off he then decides to stop miss may not in the back of her neck you kicks and stops her in the vertebrates trying to break her now he's not he doesn't feel any successful killing her that way so he drags her into the bathroom and he's in by the way he in his own words the economy the issues in this case that all of these facts relate these facts relate it is always an issue in this court in a capital case whether death is the appropriate sentence and it was certainly an issue that was raised in the in the defendant's brief and the reason i bring these facts as court's attention is because it is always a factor it is always a decision that this court must make  i'd like to move on to the issue of defense of the most time on which was the issue regarding judge lanterns exercise of discretion in this case which was completely proper she was faced with a situation where the the the the prosecution had filed their answer to discovery the ball was in the defense court and what was this defense attorney doing you files a motion in this motion you will look in fain you will look in vain for any word about mr grant church going out of the cation leaving the country it's not in there he did mislead the court the only word that he said on the subject on this particular court date april twenty sixth was well i'm going on vacation that doesn't jive with his testimony at that at the remain hearing that this court this court order because at that remained hearing he conceded as much that this was not a little vacation he conceded that he was thinking about living in israel that he did not supply the court with the requested notice when he would be coming back that he had a conversation with judge lampton in chambers and this is really important because judge lampton puts this conversation that they had in chambers in the record for you and and she makes it part of her findings in the in these findings are absolutely essential to this case because what we find out in that in that room and hearing is that mr grant was at a crossroads in his life he didn't even know whether he was he was going to be living in israel or living in the united states he had no idea when he was coming back or if he was coming back that comes from church lambkins findings from this in chambers discussion that that mr granites had on the second and i submit to you the reason that he finally had this discussion in chambers with with judge lampton and finally disclosed what he was doing in this case is because he had no plan b he only had a plan a in this case and that plan eight was that he would be appointed along with mr tice and that he was going to transfer everything over to mr tice and he was leaving the country and he was going to leave it in mr tice's hands and why do i say that you look at the record look at the actual statements of greenwich in the record in this case he doesn't say all we're going to be sharing responsibility but is not that is not what he said maybe maybe seven years later to remain here and he said something like that but when push came to shove when this when this case really mattered at the time that this decision was being made here's what here's what mr granted sight i'm going on vacation and mr mr tice is going to be taking over the litigation of this case those are his words in the record and the next court date he was absolutely consistent with that he said mr granted i'm sorry mr tice is going to carry on this case while i'm gone a public defender who was in the courtroom represented that he had a conversation with mr tice mr branch with mr greenwich and mr greenwich told him it was going to be at least six months that he was going to be gone this matters because as i said the people had filed their answer to discovery the ball was in the defense court and at the remaining hearing mr grant admitted the following he admitted that this was a complex case that it was going to involve interviewing hundreds of witnesses potentially hundreds of witnesses that there were thousands of pages of of discovery to digests that obviously there was mitigation evidence that had to be accumulated there was some possible forensic testing of of the d n a evidence in this case that might be the defense might want to do independent testing of that these are all concessions that mr greenwich made about how he was going to have to handle this case these are all things that were going to have to happen but mr branch was going to be partially partially made it the the parameters for the capitol litigation trial bar were in place the capital litigation act was affective but in terms of the existence of a in actual capital litigation trial bar that wasn't in place yet because this court knew that it would take some time for attorneys to get their materials together get bills filed with the court the court would have to approve those people who would who would go on to become criminal code and section one twenty four five of the of the capital geisha act they both specified who should be appointed for an indigent defendant and they said in working together those two statutes were read together such that you would appoint the public defender or a member of the capital litigation trial barwell there was no capital litigation trial bar in that at this point she did not air in this case she she there are two grounds that are expressed to put people to this case that have been announced by the united states supreme court and actually affirmed by this court in burnett and one of those is that whether he's retained or not a defendant is not entitled to an on available counsel and that absolutely applies in this case mr grant it was not available so judge lane king was applying good law she was supplying the president of the united states supreme court and this court in in determining that mr grant's wasn't going to be available for defendant and that's a perfectly acceptable perfectly acceptable rationale do you  challenge there was there was never an attorney client relationship between a defendant mister i don't i'm not saying that there wasn't an attorney client relationship but that particular that particular issue is a little bit complicated because because of the the posture of this case but judge land confound that that that complication was being done for a reason let me get into that a little bit regionally in this case defendant wasn't represented even by mr grant she was originally represented by a public defender he was an indigent and then mr granite church steps forward in this case at some point and is offered a retainer and we know it isn't very much of a retainer because mr granite church says about sixty five hundred dollars he said he'd worked a total of twenty hours on the case in nine months he'd only work twenty hours on this stuff face and when when you look at all the things that he had to do in this case that it's a really minimal amount of time that he had put in in this case but he'd already used half of the retainer up and he testifies at the remaining hearing that he's in this case for the money and i don't blame him but but he's in this case to be paid he's not going to he's not going to work in this case pro bono he needs to be paid and my position i submit that the judge land confound that bet she knew all along that that he accepted this money this minimal retainer in order to work an end around the the the statutes of the state be the rules promulgated by this court specifying that for an indigent defendant the default rule is appointment of a public defender doesn't mean that you can't ever have private counsel but it means the default rule is appointment of a public defender and what this case actually represents is a recipe for getting around what about legally legally she never appointed him although she said the words i point you on the record it's it's clear that this was a contingent appointment that mr graham it was only offering his services so long as mr tice could be appointed along with them as i said before he had no plan b in order for his appointment to work he had to have mr tyson on this case so his h for to be appointed in this case was conditional and that condition was never granted what happened was that the court probably as a matter of course saw this this attorney stepped forward he had been defendant's counsel he's asking for it to be paid by the state she probably thought no problem and then and then mr greenwich brought her attention to the fact that he needed and if you look at the motion it's very specifically mr grant's although he didn't say meeting about leaving the country he did say that that's what this is because mr branch is leaving the country and who's going to represent to find mr greenwich is only going to work on this case if he's going to get paid and if and if mr tice is appointed as his substitute counsel his place holder counsel it's clear from the record there's there's no other way that this is going to work he doesn't offer an alternative he never offers an alternative this is it you take this word teenie take us both or he never he never offers another alternative to judge lankan in this case a defendant title to get to have two attorneys on it seem to be something if you judge they were not respect to the keppel a vacation trial bar indicates that there should be two two attorneys appointed or two there should be two attorneys at least on a capital case there isn't any issue related t isis or no he really he never made an appearance until i believe it of the may ninth date or the may twenty second date when all this was resolved and that's that's another point this issue of appointment was never it was never final it was never resolved because it was so dependent on mr tice's appointment and mr tice was never appoint appointed the court never resolve that issue until on may twenty second she did formally appoint the public defender and she she in her words vacated whatever point and she had made of of mr granites in that case keep in mind he's not retained counsel he's not retained counsel in this point he admits as much he admits it to remain hearing i need to be paid i'm not doing this pro bono and defend in this case has filed an affidavit of his assets and liabilities he files that basically in conjunction with this motion to be appointed mr grant is motion to be appointed so he could get paid by by the state so mr grant is is no longer retained at this point he is he's clearly seeking to be appointed counsel he is an indigent defendant he can only represent this defendant if he's going to be paid and he withdraws he actually withdraws his appearance in the case he says it's over his objection don't be the court didn't didn't remove his appearance she baked hated the appointment that she had made that she thought she had made a month earlier she did  appearance he withdrew his appearance he said it was over his objection but he's the one that withdrew from this case nonetheless if this point he was no longer retain and as i said before even if he were retained it wouldn't matter it wouldn't matter in this case because he wasn't available and it doesn't it does it does not have to be the situation that the case is on the eve of trial defendant makes that point in his reply brief he says well to spoil our case in this court was aware of the spill our case when it decided burnett which i which i mentioned earlier he says this fraud case was a well that was an eve of trial decision so that's different but the the other cases that i cited were not eve of trial decisions the huey case was dismissed the attorney was removed in that case for failing to make a commitment to to try to represent the defendant the attorney was removed in that case some five months before trial and in the monday a case which was also a capital case from california the defendant  in the attorney in that case the of the appointed attorney in that case was removed some nine months before trial in that case so it is not it is not the case that this has to be a a  of trial sort of decision this court promulgated the capital medication trial bar for a reason and there are those rules are very much implicated by this case this court well understood i don't have to preach to this court this court well understood why it promulgated the capital of a geisha trial bar and i submit it's because among other things you wanted to ensure that the attorney representing the defendant in a capital case made a serious commitment was qualified and would make a serious commitment to represent somebody who was on trial for their life and i submit to you that mr branch's comment that he was going to have sort of one throat over there half the world away and another foot here is exactly wrong and is exactly the reason why he should have been removed in this case because he could not make the serious commitment that's required to to represent somebody and these are the highest stakes in criminal litigation this is as high as it and he could not make that commitment and he should not have represented the defendant on to under these circumstances and far from far from defendant being able to show any sort of abuse of discretion in this case i submit to you that judge lampkin acted absolutely properly in removing an attorney who could not make the commitment the serious commitment involved in representing a defendant on trial for his life with respect to the second issue i just wish to say as i said in my brief that that issue is really it's the first issue's going to be dispositive of the second issue because the second issue is the the guilty considerations and that issue clearly hangs on the claim that there was a misapprehension of law what's the suppose it misrepresentation of law that judge lampton didn't wasn't authorized to remove counsel that we know that absolutely false united states first first gonzales lopez burnett these cases authorized judge lampton to remove an attorney who was unavailable and by the way who was seeking appointment because an indigent defendant has no right to choose counsel because there was no misty apprehension of law and there could not be any misapprehension of the law in this case defendant had no legal justification for withdrawing his guilty plea and i go on in my brief to talk about all the things that defendants and he makes quite a record about about how he he was voluntarily pleading guilty how he appreciated the representation that he was receiving there's there's no question that that defendant wasn't two years later pleading guilty because of something that happened with respect to mr granted but that's really ultimately it's beside the point  decide the first issue then you've decided the second issue one more thing about about the first issue and with the with the appointment of counsel and this is really crucial i bring this up because of the the financial pressures that the states under in this court this court is undoubtedly aware of those situations there is a policy that stated in in the law not just not just from the general assembly across the street but actually by this court to in its own rules that the preferred counsel to be appointed in a case is the public defender this like i said before doesn't mean that there can never be private attorneys on the case but let's look for example at rule four sixteen the committee comments this court says in in appointing counsel in a capital case violation in this case but there is a question that's raised about whether there's a policy in the state because the defendant argues that judge lampton is sort of arbitrary and that she's using this as some some sort of wrong rationale for for her decision in this case but it has to be it has to be as a practical matter or a rationale consideration in this case of how attorneys are going to be paid and it has to be consideration that this this court itself has articulated that counsel the preferred counsel is the public defender if nothing else for physical reasons i mean the court decided case called people versus canyon that i say cited in county's finances and with the state's finances but because of that the this court said that a court should seriously she would appoint the public defender whenever feasible in this court in ru then you can look to private counsel to come and step in in the case or in a case where say the part of the public defender only has one capital to geisha trial bar qualified attorney and the second attorneys as you mentioned before just freiman the second attorney needs to be appointed and for whatever reason the public defender and the private attorney can't work together that might be a reason to actually point to private attorneys in that case and this court goes on to say or when the public defender is unavailable for some other reason but this court is working exactly in conjunction with the state statutes in this case because the state statutes spell out that the default rule is appointment of the public defender no i'm not i'm not saying that that this court should overlook the constitution but i'm saying that number one justice lampton was absolutely authorized by the constitution because what does it say the united states supreme court said specifically that the right to counsel of choice is limited it's limited in by several important in sort several important respects and among those is the right to effective account right to effective assistance of counsel the defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel and we see in the weak case united states supreme court case and wheat that when push comes to shove and the question becomes whether we're going to have counsel choice or counsel who is is affective and can actually represent the define in this case the court is going to choose the the this court's rules she was acting under color of the state statutes and she was acting under color of constitutional precedent as set up by this court and by the united states  mr branch in this case as i said before he was not able to make the serious commitment required in this case but there's something more to it than that there was a decided lack of candor in what he said to the court and i've talked  indicated that he wanted to represent himself that if there was one occasion there was one quarter where where he made some mention that he wanted to represent himself and on the very next court date unprompted by the court he said was because he was told that he had to have the public defender once your knowledge was read and if that is true and under those circumstances it would appear that his voluntary decision to plead guilty it's not your honor because first laws as i said before he's not under a misapprehension of law here that judge lampton was acting legally correct has as i mentioned before there's no misapprehension of law therefore there's no grounds for withdraw the guilty pl but she said in her words would you do this for me would you talk this over with your attorney he talks it over with his attorney and at the very next court date he says i choose to have counsel represent me and i think that answers your question pretty pretty solidly because at that point defendants as i choose to have counsel public defenders representing him represent me and even it at the time of the guilty plea he says that he appreciates the job that the public defenders are doing and he says quote unquote they do pretty much everything i asked them to do are there any other questions from the court i know my time's just about out thank you people of the state will i respectfully request that this  well justice going to answer your question this what judge now did just as lamb can said at page fifteen this is her fifty eight pages of findings recently she said on it with twenty six on april twenty sixth and at some other place which i haven't found it in here the judge said there's no question but that he was appointed that's not an issue he was appointed so the whole idea capital cases should be assigned between private counsel and the public defender office equally there's funding for one there is funding for the other there is no such thing as the default rule that we should appoint a public defender office in capital cases and if we gave them one hundred percent of the cases or conversely gave one hundred percent of the capital cases to private bar council then the funding that was available would be exhausted but if general somebody wants  be distributed among various both types of council there was normal plan b well what is he talking about if the judges said no you are not appointees you're in the case by yourself plan b would have done to stay home and represent mr baez which is what he testified he was going to do it is inconsistent to say that he wanted to dump the case on tice but get the case for money and the only way they can make that false construct work is to come up with this idea that that his appointment was really rude contingent request it was not there's nothing in there about it don't appoint over here on them he had seventeen that he wanted to substitute tyson for the case and she says that and sixteen or seventeen but then over on twenty four she says in effect so in effect he wanted to substitute tyson the case i don't know which it is but the fact of matter is he testified that he was going to represent the case and if he he said if i would have stayed in the case had i been allowed the bottom line is that this is that greenwich was hired to do a case he knew there was a capital litigation fund that was coming there was nothing wrong at the time he took the case with taking the case he did a lot of work on the case but stay had not announced it was a capital case given to be tannery had he had to pick and choose what he's going to do first he did what had to be done he read all that it guilt innocence discovery when the state announced it was going to be a capital case then he had his motion ready to ask for funding he needed funding no question he needed funding and he was said that back in january but he had an established attorney client relationship with baez he was removed from the case unnecessarily  it was unreasonable because a lot of time have to go by before anything substantive was going to happen and mr baez did not consent to this he was not even consulted about this isn't that a violation of the existing attorney  when the judge terminates it because the judge thinks that the has to be a reason that for a point theme the public somebody other than the public defender who she already appointed isn't the time to say that on april twenty six says say you're appointed come back and give me the issue so wait a minute not so fast and i'm going to take back my point that would be ok on that same day but she didn't she waited until later and unfortunately that means that mr grant is in the case and ripping him out of the case is a violation of the sixth and i meant and article one section eight which is independent now to the state ground in this case what was said on the record at the time and i agree we should focus on what was in the record at the time it was not subject to cross examination them it was called as the court's witness court didn't ask manish to verify or dispute those memories the judge had of what he was going to do his testimony is consistent throughout that he was going to stay on the case and work on the case and he would come back and work on the case i don't think that it's fair for the judge not to have asked mr grammars those questions he did say and on the ninth that he was going out of the country the judge said that three times the whole problem here is the judge said i think i should be pointed the public defender when it was unnecessary and on reason to do that do so and the statute one thirteen dash three b does have a preference for public defenders and on capital cases but one thirteen dash three in all states in all cases where the state is given notice of his intention to seek the death penalty the trial judge shell point and indigent defendant to qualify counsel i stop right there there's no period or comma or anything else there because it goes on to say until the trial of this matter which is at least arguably what the judge thought was going to happen in this case when mr baez have an issue then before this court that the judge would probably want to remove him from the case right then right there right and that's why i said to you earlier at least the credibility determination that the judge focused on namely that it one point it appeared he was only com me she believed it wasn't coming back to the trial she didn't believe when he said well i really meant i was coming back for motions as well so i just i guess the point is there's an issue if the judge keeps him in and there's an issue if the judge try she didn't say i want to know in writing when you will be gone but but she could have inquired further and said you know what are you going to mean you're not going to be coming back and for two to be fair to mr greenwich he was just trying to explain he was going on because then he would come back i don't think he really just said meant to say with specific specificity that he was not going to come back for anything but the trial and that's how the judge was reading it i don't know that's a fair reading he would be gone and he didn't and he didn't do that that's right he should have done that but he didn't