likely to be a very good defense you insisted on it he scurried around getting evidence and he actually found some he found somebody who basically met somebody who said he was in a shoot or saw somebody in a bar said he was in a shootout at the location of the act crimes and about the right time and the person didn't look anything like you and he told me it wouldn't be good alibi defense because he wouldn't say who you were with who would be your alibi wit s but he presented it since that's what you insisted was the truth what is deficient performance about a lawyer doing th no you should not lie and say you were not there by the district judge that because of this prosecutor's way of doing deals with a lawyer and insisting that they not tell the client that coleman did not know she had a firm deal you're right about that but you've got to take the next step it has to be knowingly false and the prosecutor putting it on has to know that it's that it's false and i don't see how you get to that next step so basically she showed that she must have known and he must have known that she knew you argue because of the ethical duty her lawyer would have had you think to tell her about the deal undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial along with a circuit established in standard versus result the bunny brown versus myers emphasized that go to probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the ninety four and the junction versus old one one one four and thirty eight thirty five ninth circuit nineteen ninety seven against standard versus britell the defendant has said that that he was not there there about on the way back to sacramento about longbows not having enough money on hand the whole subject of discussion was that he had been double crossed so clearly there are in line with impeachment that were that were lies within the fabric of truth to give them an aura up plausibility however there's no disputing that he lied to both his lawyer and his first jury when he swore that he was not present even had the audacity to  hit out on his mother when she refused to cooperate and corroborate this false alibi in his early hideous pleadings in state court phillips admitted shooting both victims but claimed it was in self defense he now has got a third through bar to west from left to right there is no possibility that rose shot by tulis this question find that there was no prejudice from counsel's conduct and further that there was no sufficient performance also this question find any time there's a credibility dispute between mr philips and any other person that he is the least credible person district court found as much philip has refused to subject review of materials which would help them understand clearly what had actually transpired and more importantly he fully explained in the depositions below regarding his statement that he did not find that the alibi  i agree that adkins could have been better but if you look at the two defenses the one that was given the one it was given was my client wasn't there whoever was there was involved in a shootout that person got the better of the deal that person wasn't motivated by robbery because they left a bunch of money behind my client was left handed in the bullet angle doesn't match and the defense is now saying she should have been given is that same exact defense except now that i wasn't there i was there and i pulled the trigger given that actions establishes that he thought somebody else was the perpetrator it would have been probably the reverse of ineffectiveness if he had given contrary to his client's testimony times how to take the fifth amendment as a result of his knowledge that he was not going to answer these cross examination questions despite all of this repeated warnings and repeated discussion by martin still steadfast that he was not present and even said to his lawyer i'm a pro i've been there the job would not have been so sloppy how many times did martin materials and having never complained below about the number of meetings between them and a claim by phillips now that they hadn't met adequately it's  i don't believe he did one of the problems that we have now of course is the number of years that have gone by and i would posit that martin is an inherently credible witness and he was unwilling to say things that he could truly not remember clearly much should have been c p u time record whether phillips discussions or martin's discussions with philips how that affects the question of what martin duty was to investigate either the alibi or other things focused on the case generally he looked at all of the physical evidence all the documentary evidence even continued to focus on the crime scene and the manner of killings even after philip swore he was not present even pursued a psychiatric d police were looking for him but don't seem to think about the toyota because it's not related to the jury heard how he described the bullet going through him because i could hear it go through the body of a car you know here is brings that home philip step the location of the meeting he set the time in place he already had eleven thousand five hundred dollars of their money and urged rose to bring as much task to the meeting as he possibly could phillips asked both men for masses at the second gas stop demonstrating that he was premeditating the fire and further brought a gas can which mr rose could hear flexing as he poured gasoline over him further demonstrating his premeditation by bringing the gas to the scene rose testified that he heard a man's voice as he was being searched there was only one man left standing and that was phillips and the money was in this top pocket of his shirt or jacket that's correct and if the intent was robbery  he didn't find did not find the money where was the breast pocket relative to the holes in the man's body the holes on rose's body were from left to right rather than vice versa and then the question comes down to did was counsel ineffective in not making that argument or the evidence or whatever was necessary and effective in respect of because having that to the jury counsel did argue that well he argued that whoever was present didn't take a large sum of money and therefore was not motivated by robbery and the jury rejected that state's theory is he did all of this in order to get the five thousand dollars and does that theory make any sense when he didn't do the elementary thing th event based on the fact that he wanted to commit in a robbery and the murder took place in the course of that robbery or did the robbery take place after the murder and by robbery we're talking about different things  and went to the police that if he couldn't get to her he would find somebody who would and he threatened her with that life threat five times she was a nineteen year old girl who was manipulated by him and when he told her that she needed to do something she was s afraid she would do anything that he said and she wasn't afraid of being executed for first degree murder that wouldn't have been an incentive i don't believe she felt she was complicit in the crime in any way which is why she reject on a murder charge she posted bail and then she'd be released on her own recognizance her preliminary hearing has been continued numerous times and the parties stipulated that the number of continuances was unusual and seldom granted for so long and the jury was informed and learned that coleman was engaged in prostitution they knew that she arrived and left with phillips and they were instructed that as an accomplice her testimony must be viewed must be corroborate and must be viewed with distrust and attorney martin brought home the subject of her potential benefits powerfully to the jury he said to them obviously there's some kind of anticipated deal here better off hold the murder charge over her until you get the testimony you want then close the bargain hold the murder charge over her head to compel her to testify she's like a bird that's human that they call coleman sold her soul she charged with murder that's hanging over her like a large animal she's going to say what they want coleman's testimony is just a story which was bought and paid for she waited until she had a deal so finally the slowest phillips's whereabouts nice young lady nineteen year old girl as we call the one thousand year old girl came back to the car and there she had a conversation with phillips but there's no corroboration for that they could believe  have given the jury a totally different issue which he never investigated because he said he didn't have the facts that he didn't have a jury been presented with an argument three hour interview with law enforcement sharing coleman says nothing about the matches she was asking she was asked in the interview about how i don't know i don't know i guess  that he tell phillips to testify that he was there and it was a shootout yes tell me if i understand you right you're saying he could have put on the shoot out defense kept putting philip on the witness stand because the ballistics evidence would have raised a reasonable doubt my concern is it's unethical to tell your client to lie as a lawyer you really don't know what happened because you want to hear yourself a lawyer really does have an alibi  so you pretty much depend on your client in your investigation to find out what happened at and i'm trying to think how the shoot out defense could be put on with any effectiveness without