and how the manner in which the court heard and ruled on the motion denied him his due process rights i intend to discuss both issues however the course denial of mr god let's constitutional right to hire an appearance i mr guy works in a motion and the state objected to him entering his appearance because on this the argument that he should not be allowed to only enter his appearance on the d n a motion on and that he would also he should also have to represent mister blunt and his separate post conviction petition and then the court agreed with the state and refused to allow mr brodsky to enter his appearance  group really this issue has not been litigated because the right to hire an attorney is so well understood that this type of an issue generally doesn't come up in the two cases that they do say there is potential nick which is so in other words this is not a quality of representation issue where we can assess counsel's performance and evaluate whether in fact of the fairness of the proceedings based on other evidence it's a complete denial of them he had no he had no other  what at first i would say in this case it was arbitrary it's arbitrary because whether or not it mr god was post conviction counsel decided that he wasn't going to drop really wasn't a basis for the court's denial mr brodsky denying mr president the right to appear in his case he didn't say well this motion really has no merit so i'm just i'm just not going to let you do this i don't you know i'm going to protect  i would i would argue it's not based to it's not dependent i kind of an abuse of discretion standard it's an absolute right just like the sixth amendment right is if you had at for instance an attorney who represented you in a motion to suppress different passages right it's a constitutional right rooted in the fifth amendment is constitutional right to be heard through counsel and i guess that goes to as well maybe because conviction counsel didn't really research we don't know all that but the if you look at how the state use the absence of scientific have they actually are you would that the absence of the evidence on the clothing corroborate their witness's testimony because she testified that the and then mediately after the incident she took a shower then they brought in their forensic expert and explained that this was why there was no d n a material found on her shirt or on her and where and so the state's theory was that actually it's the   could result in evidence relevant to his playing if it would contradict her allegations against him it would show that it would he had the potential to show that he was either awfully accused because it would show up actual situation that was very different from the one  because they knew they needed to bolster their case because it was just one witness it was her word against it was her testifying that was it that was the young man's and her statements afterwards but at the end of the day it came down to her seat minutes against him legal requirements in these more sophisticated arguments exactly like that is a real careful look at the facts and and what was argued at trial and especially my science here in the you know the importance of mr complex for right to hire an attorney was even more present and expects he also since the state filed an objection after he filed his motion and there for a time clearly the proceedings have now turned adversarial and then with the  not believe that mr brodsky should only be allowed to represent mr galloway and his motion for d n a testing they believe that he would also be required to represent him and his second stage of conviction what his constitutional right to hire an attorney his constitutional right to be heard through counsel there's simply no legal basis for the court to do so and there was certainly no factual basis  in any judicial proceeding you have the right to hire an attorney you have a right to hire an attorney and be heard through counsel who who has the skills and who to to present your case for you  be representative i don't think that that makes a difference i don't think that those considerations would be appropriate for appeal we are bound by the record in front of us had had the court made a record and so that maybe we could have looked at those reasons a those were the reasons i still don't think that he couldn't deny i don't think it makes a difference i think again this is an absolute right i don't know it would be a i'm confident ted to say to deny the right to hire counsel the right to be heard through counsel and then rely on some type of reasoning outside reasoning from the court to find that you know that it was proceeding is of critical importance and here mr godlike was denied his due process right to hire an attorney that alone required for bursal in this case and present an expert witness who would speak to who would have spoken under color of criminal procedure this is technically a criminal proceeding not a civil one those motions were limited scope should be reviewed on or the trial judge this is not about a constitutional right to counsel there is no constitutional rights council in these proceedings this is not a constitutional issue all versus the law it's pretty clear that the right council exists the constitution allows that or requires it or if the statute provides for this statute doesn't provide for  if the statute allowed you know ok that's why the public defender wouldn't represent this defendant and his motion for d n a testing because it's not are what they represent  chain of custody as to this little girl's shirt underwear inject this ten year old girl it was the defendant's daughter who was over or we can visitation she's down stairs in the basement room asleep when the defendant came down lay down on top of her intentionally penetrator there's doctors physical evidence consistent  penetration that she identified after she told her mother two days later similar to the hospital they have these exams and the police collected  the defendant and in the defendants in brief we admit that identity thing was not an issue that he did not wish to testify at trial and he didn't testify the defendant presented no this court's case of people versus grant i think controls this issue i think it was a very clear as to what i  defendant or somebody else committed the crime the defendant didn't do that this court quotes that our legislature wanted post conviction forensic testing to occur almost cases or such testing could discover prime fish case which he didn't the testing that he wanted to use required the employment of scientific information he had to show that it was accepted within the scientific community that would be reason to produce witnesses but he didn't get that far so this is from six scientists he wanted to have testify no i dismissed your  attorney to present his case that's where the right comes from not from thirteen c six thirteen c six is a vehicle for entering an appearance and it provides some guidance and under these circumstances where there are discrete actions and  make sure the parties are aware you know this is what i'm representing the ally i'm all in representing you on this case the courts where this is the only case that representing a line is helpful that way certainly it's helpful that way you know it and i don't see anything from prohibiting it actually from applying to criminal cases it can terms of a vehicle for how to enter your appearance i don't see anything in the rule or in any other statute thing this can only be applied in criminal in excuse me in civil to have his representation in the constitution i guess what i would take from this is this basically this procedural rule on how to enter your appearance in a case  scientifically accepted both directly to the issue he wants he wanted to present an expert witness who could testify exactly to those that issue so that the court made a proper assessment on