are trying a defendant must show an actual conflict of interest and that's defined as a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel's performance as opposed to a theoretical division of loyalties so our defendant here objected he made it loud and clear that he was objecting so he is not held to the higher standard of a non objecting consul i'm not giving you another lawyer and he stood by that despite our lower standard we actually have shown an actual conflict of interest and we've shown an adverse impact so let's look at the situation mr clarke murdered  he still has the ski mask and he still has the police badge in his car he's not going back to jail no way so he makes the decision to shoot the trooper that stopped him you know what would we as a lawyer it would make me uncomfortable if i was that one of our clients and it would make me uncomfortable if i was good to the case how then can the government say oh about clarke's actions that night were not related to this is related to a case that was about to be tried and to test m this is really bad to have the same one here represent mr ponza who when he had represented the person who tried to kill him and it's definitely definitely related mean i know that judge thompson have another conflict of interest case pending and if i can say so i think this one is way beyond that like this this is just so clear to me that you would not want to be in that position and i'd like you to when the end reverse and remand on that basis turning now to another major problem with the case is the verdict form to the jury he said and as to count three it says deception relations murder conspiracy and a place you can check on not guilty or so all we now you say that the new charges now that in a way involve any possible testimony from those two witness the new charges involved the arizona marijuana money laundering fled from justice  there was testimony that he was involved with some some but not least two individuals they called after he listed them is an alibi witness to charges that he had required for the rule of automatic reversal to apply first the defense attorney has to have been appointed appointed against his will over his objection and second the district court has to have failed to m clark committed a crime that's not correct he didn't he was not willing to have it evidence come in that mr kerik had been trying to kill mr ponzo but in fact he was willing to have the evidence come in the mr k or was one of the people who shot ethical rules are not enough show violation and in this case the case is really not as interrelated as mr ponza would suggest we're talking about a fifteen year gap between mr comey representation of conspiring to commit murder in a derogatory the object is to commit murder the object itself doesn't require the use of force granting the conspiracy simply upon the agreement confusion i think court thank you and i want to address some of the things that the government brought up big guarding the conflict of interests first of all mr ponsonby the only thing he could do as soon as he found out about his lawyer was about to start a trial representing him having already represented somebody who tried to kill him mr ponsonby only thing he could do to pilot a pro se motion and the court heard that motion on the first at a great cost once before it did not want to do that again this was not brought to the way trial it was brought on the horrifying reason brings it dangerously close to an ineffective assistance claim which this is not and me witness answered they require an a and b not objecting to a simple question is a far far cry from presenting evidence and exploring it and explaining to the jury that you're coming in was in fear for his life far different your honour's a single question when he could have done so much this is a very complex heated case with complex issues but the constitution demands that a person on trial for such serious crimes and have f fear for one's life isn't defense and i say yes i thought about it flight from justice by its very nature by its name is flight to avoid justice and if you really because people are trying to kill you your purpose is not to work for justice it's to save your life