a significant barrier in this matter but it's not an insurmountable barrier our position would be that this dies a thousand deaths from the various slings and arrows the other factual underpinnings and currents that were attendant to  this is a truly unique case and that there are a lot of factors a lot of coercive factors a lot of legitimate reasons for because otto to enter a plea against his initial instincts against his initial desires and i'd like to briefly detail them for the reasonable reason for not for entering a plea against his wishes and involuntary flee and this case aside from all the other factors are two key factors of the course and look at the first is the evidence that his wife was threatening a perjury if she were to take the stand his wife was a key witness in this case and fact that she did before this case with the trials that spoke with the prosecutor and told the prosecutor in the school the tory version the facts are that she discovered it was not it was having an affair with this woman she left him because of that district court and the answers that he's given are deemed to be untruthful were not there i mean the district court judge has to rely upon what he hears at the time of these told me that you said this and at no time in the record does that just say wait a minute i never said that or that the attorneys say i never told them you said that they just come that's just ignored and hearing goes on but the state court never made a representations there in a canvas that he wasn't threatened and that's a basis for which wrongness please and we have that's a unique factor something you're not going to have a lot of cases another unique factor here is the nature of the victim the purported victim in this matter who was an employee of the metropolitan police department and what we have in this matter another factual circumstance that was never been really ruled upon by any court is that mr presiding the subjects who coersion sharp police tactics by bot police and by the jail by the guards in the jail specifically the brother of the alleged victim who was a guard in the jail but when did that happen all before the plead your honor and the relevance of this is that mr herzog is being subjected by the state by state actors from the very beginning of this matter to the stark and and coercive tactics that would proceeding through the judge and when he's asked the question in the police quality is there any coercion he says no that we should disregard that i can understand i have freely admit that the fleet campus here is a huge problem for us and we have to get beyond this campus and what my position is is that you add up all the factors that were impacting presided including his loss of faith and his attorney which appears to be objective lee reasonable that he was ready to say and do anything at that time when he made the decision to get that plea through and that and it's legitimate that the courts give that plea campus a great deal of weight and it is legitimate that we should have a heavy burden of coming forth with enough evidence to get past that barrier and we're suggesting this case that we did and that is truly unique factor that this the victim this is the alleged victim's brother was working in the jail and subjecting our client to all kinds of abuses and coercive conditions while he was was reasonable because he knew or believe that this is what this is and move out of the apartment complex which it appears that have been the case of what happened with one of them but was in the record before the court below which were to give substantial difference under the arguing that any of the factual findings from that court after that hearing work are constitutionally suspect because of this added layer of ineffective assistance but even backing away from that our first and primary allegation here is that mr because  record that mr president was taken over to the to have a polygraph test administered upon him by the clark county public defender's office and what we know about the clark county public defender's office especially at this period of time is that they did that for one reason and that is as a resource allocation mechanism that if you failed the polygraph the office would not put a lot of resources into your case and that this period of time in order to get your case investigated in order to receive a lot of resources from that office you had to prove in effect actual innocence by passing of all your out in this case because i refused to take the polygraph and that this this court has already dealt with this issue of the clark county public defender's office in the case he's going to receive harsh treatment if he's found guilty by a jury after being told that his life will be indicted for perjury if she testifies on the stand against them after she had just given birth to his daughter that after that knowing that his attorney only hearing and i would submit that given all these extra facts that were in play that this plea will school worse the court should have allowed him to withdraw his plea and go to trial and at that time it would have been in a timely fashion and i like reserve my last min please the court my name is david knight and i'm a deputy attorney general for the state of nevada a lot of the argue we just heard was reminding me of the famous sherlock holmes story the story where the dog that didn't bark ended up proving the case because something didn't happen it should have and we heard a lot of arguing will this happen and this happened this happened this happened and we don't we don't we don't know we don't know but we do know was this we do know that there was a  plea canvas in which mr cruz daughter was specifically asked by the judge are you being coerced and he said now we asked he was asked what quite frankly of almost an where he talks about not the first paragraph of that second paragraph but he believes that his wife would be prosecuted for perjury if she testified all of the other arguments that mr karr made today you would think on the record would have been part of this affidavit and they were not what we have in this case what you make of the argument not afraid to say what you think is mine is obvious throughout the record and the you and the record is pretty clear the metrical daughter was in the game player i mean that's really really rather clear from the fact that he waived disciplinary hearing and then he wants to go back because he thought enough to require an evidentiary hearing i don't think so i think once again we have you know what i think we're looking at the you know the record of the case the extensive canvass that he's making he's made an allegation is was the decisions decisions plural from the nevada supreme court object only and reasonable and that i think the answer to that is no and that the the divestment court's decisions based on the record that was developed in the state court credibility determination made at that point in time of who was credible for you have a person who's given a totally incredible version of events and now you're saying that one is one area that in a string of that well now because it's one of the very wasn't specifically addressed we should now have an evidentiary hearing even though everything else to else he said was totally incredible i think that i don't think that's appropriate i think that in this in the testifies about how cooper told him that his witness would be indicted for perjury and he also testifies about the worst of conditions you tell in custody if it is your hearing on pages one twenty five or twenty six and one of the chief allegations that we make in this is that we