in a remarkable situation the one subject had his lawyer representing the other at trial and the result that i live in with and which is fifty thousand in that area is probably a little bigger now and when you take all of that county that's an amazing county because it goes right over the sierra and so there's the taco area there's a fair amount of lawyers but also it's part of the sacramento metropolitan area so you'd have all the sacramento council available you know they drive in about twenty minutes up into the foothills to represent and it's interesting that weiner of course was representing the other possible murder in sacramento at the time that lewis was persuaded to hire  and we have in the excerpts of record the matters filed in the superior court that detail the reasons for the new trial and i believe that is properly before appeal the problem is that especially when you have statements attributed to from that i got lewis to be represented by weiner because he's my insurance policy which is in the record then i don't see how you can get around the fact that you're now into actual conflict of significant one and it would have actually i think had some impact more than just the routine thing these throw at the jury because there's clearly drugs and alcohol going here and people doing crazy things so that's the kind of kind of thing you'd want to paint i think it's i think you get to the same point by a different route you know if he has to be for instance i think there's some allusion in the motion for new trial to maybe tactical and normally that's the kind of tactical thing that attorneys have deference to him but in this case there doesn't appear to be any reason other one i understand the distinction but i'm thinking my thinking is that you get to the same place because of the conflict and when when you have evidence that somebody said that you  defending somebody because you were this other person's insurance policy i think you have to get out or this type of thing happens so i think that what is massed as some sort of tactical decision normally happens in murder cases the defense is i didn't do it somebody else did it correct so that's the usual ordinary standard defense right in this case the lawyer couldn't do that he had come out because of the fact that and had been a prior clients but i think your point reply i understand your point and that's on the record and i don't dispute the record on that point so i think that that was actually to was pried out and i think this is extremely similar it was brought out that your guy has not been prosecuted for having weapons and he's not being prosecuted for drugs and they know he's a convicted felon and he's not being prosecuted for that  the way that he argued the case in closing argument and looked at what he had in front of them in terms of tactical purposes and i think those courts after looking at all that concluded here's an attorney that he this is one of those cases where we've got bad witnesses we've got a bad defendant and they're all part and parcel of this plane group of people that are running around the halls of eldorado you know smoking about unfed and so i think it's one of those cases where and you know he destroyed the witness killing and lose and we had an independent testimony as as a motive and i think that's really what made the difference here is the motive to kill the chal as louis did and i think that was that was really pointed out the way that his rage would develop that day and so bob lazar is not putting on these people to testify as to what they would be saying at the trial that leads me to point that they weren't very credible and that there was a good reason for them not testifying in the motion for a new trial i think on the record that we have in this and i did a nice job at trial and really going out of his way to say hey work is better and a liar and a drug addict and all these other things you know you can't possibly can because of the reliant park and he did a great job of pointing out you know that would be a very difficult thing to do but i think because of the other evidence in the case that i pointed out and just the way that the crime went down the independent witness says that the modest amount of was there for lewis it wasn't there for  nice for us to have been there and testing these witnesses because i think we'd have a better feel for it then but at least from the whole transcript that i read and it was pretty clear that there was something boiling up in the dissent and about and mitchell taking  that probably there should have been another paragraph or two just dealing with that but the point is that i felt it was clearly not tactical because of the conflict and that's why i think why i phrased it that way but i think it's