it please the court mike rayfield on behalf of the appellant james whether you this as a strickland issue or as a mccoy issue a criminal defense attorney isn't allowed to tell the jury an account of the fact that his client expressly disagrees  for there to be a shooting and he just didn't want that to be argued what two responses to that your honor st of all we think the affidavit is is very clear that this was rose mr rosemont own version of what  what happened he said and this is at a one thousand seven hundred and five that he opposed his counsel's approach not just as a matter of trial strategy but also because i viewed it as a concession that i had committed an immoral and shameful act the most logical reading of that of that statement is that mr roseman believe that he did not commit that act that you say i don't want to concede that i committed it but still have committed it is don't want to concede i don't have conveying to his lawyer i'm not aware of any case that has that has imposed requirement in fact in mccoy and in the th circuit decision and read the court expressly noted that that the defendant's theory of the case was was that factual account to the jury that would be a different case but that's not what happened here mr rose months counsel did not did not believe that he was ethically obligated that at the that the defense was so obviously in laws i'm looking at the  then it seems that it's a matter of strategy what to argue as opposed to what actually happens it's not it there's that the case is in this area have long drawn a distinction between trial strategy and trial objectives a lawyer gets decide things like what actions to make what witnesses to call what legal arguments to raise the jury but but the client gets to decide the objectives of representation and so what we mean by object well at minimum  i never ordered anyone to shoot and then defense counsel argue that in fact he ordered someone to shoot but i don't see that in the record were also men actually actually says i never ordered anyone to shoot i do to kidnap someone it is but it's a different it's a different act on the one that mr rosen i wanted to present to the jury because that's what he has always believed it is is is what happened the the the the mccoy violation is complete when when mr rosemont told his lawyer this is the story that you that i want you to tell to the jury and the lawyer went with his preferred approach anyway even if you view that as as a better strategy doesn't in no way depends on the fair trial indeed he received a trial focused on the very issue he previously argued to this court that his trial should have focused on he was able to represented by defense counsel and choosing and that representation amply met the standard for assistance of counsel his th amendment autonomy rights under mccoy were not violated any time his counsel never conceded guilt of the charge crime and unlike in mccoy rosena never raised his allege a disagreement with counsel until many arguable that his client and his counsel even made that concession throughout the trial his counsel vigorously cross examine witnesses and explored other potential theories and we cite those those arguments in our brief in the closing argument counsel indeed focused on the intent issue here the intent issue that rosen has previously argued his trial should have focused on and in certain instances his counsel raise the argument even if the government has proven you know that mr president authorized the shooting he didn't authorize a murder now there are a few isolated sentences and just a few where defense counsel said my client ordered a shooting in contrast i would also point the court to a particular occasion where counsel in fact said actually the only strategizing my client did was after the shooting and so it's arguable whether mr taylor made that concession in the st place but even if he did none of those c n if if the jury bought mr strategy even under the most generous interpretation of that strategy being a full concession to ordering us a shooting roseman would have been acquitted on all counts as your honour's have stated  the holding in mccoy is limited to admitting guilt because mccoy is concerned with when counsel and defendants objectives conflict and here as your honour's have pointed out the objectives of mr rose concession over his counsel's objection it is not about factual concessions and indeed in the briefs and in the oral argument in mccoy it was clear that the issue was discussed and the potential danger of allowing you i just want to address my assertion that this was an isolated and isolated statement in the closing argument this is what mr rosemont counsel said which was even more devastating than what mr rosen could have anticipated he told the jury outright quote jimmy did set up the shooting that safe one thousand five hundred and seventy three he paid for shooting a one thousand five hundred and forty three his intent was only to shoot him meaning fletcher but unfortunately for everyone involved one of the bullets had to hit the wrong rosemont did set up the shooting that's a one thousand five hundred and ninety two so both mr roseman and the government agreed that this was a critical concession and it was because this was the the central factual dispute in the case the government's central theory was that  the basic factual account that the government the government was raising with the jury and that mr roseman wanted to wanted to contest as the affidavits make clear if you think that the affidavits are not are not clear enough then then i wanted to make one of the arguments i guess the point i wanted to make this was something he didn't believe in why was that given at the bases what we want to do trial well in the last appeal the issue the problem in the last appeal was that the district court didn't allow mr rosemont to address the element of intent at all we're not saying that that mr rose we want our we want our units and you know shooting right with that one of the arguments the argument was was that mr rosemont should have been allowed to say that this was not a and that there was no intent to kill and that there was either a non fatal shooting or an or a a kidnapping we never intended to include to close the kidnapping are arguments and that was what as it turned out mr rosemond wanted to present to the jury and his lawyer violent one of the theories was there was an intent to shoot and not one of the theories i'm sorry in one of the theories in the last appeal was you know when you want to win want to argue that there was an intent to shoot and not  counsel should have pursued even though it was a possible argument that you could for through the score on the lawsuit that's correct because mr roseman informed his counsel that he did not want to present that theory at trial which is what and that's a violation of