the only right that he has the bargain with is his right to appeal and the state's has increased considerably because now there's no uncertainty about the defendant being found guilty and that's typically true in a case where the defendant is facing the most severe penalty of death as in this case i would also point out that only has a very pro up your public policy we have a constitutional right to appeal on life in federal law we have rules that make it very simple for a defendant affect an appeal and even if the defendant happens to fail to comply with those rules there are a lot of exceptions to those rules to allow defendant the right to appeal so i would move on even if this court holds that you waivers are generally permissible and after this agreement was entered into very quickly after the guilty the judge never told the defendant what an appeal is he never told the defendant what a conviction efficient proceeding is and how that's different from the appeal never really explain what a federal habeas petition is really understand the difference between congress you know feel he thought he did still have the right to go into court and challenge his conviction even though that is the right that gave i was your fri that they were to be given they don't they would have to be particularly lengthy i think it would just be a matter of explaining to a defendant that on appeal that's a chance for the defendant to not raise any errors that might have occurred a trial of sentencing to try to get new trial or reversal of his conviction and those are areas that are based on the record from the trial whereas opposed to mission proceeding is a separate proceeding from the appeal where the family can raise issues challenging his conviction that are constitutional in nature and are based on things that didn't happen and then vice similarly he could explain that a federal hideous petition is a way to raise any of those issues in a federal court after  commute sentence to some lesser sentence so it really would have taken the judge that much more time he just needed to provide a little more explanation of the nature of the rights that mistreatment and then we commonly done see that when somebody there's more explanation than what was here here basically all the judge did was state the very basic terms of the green and safe and while you understand that right yes there was no explanation of the content of agreement i'm not suggesting that there has to be you know a fifteen minute treatise on what an appeal is and what his conviction city is but a little more than what happened in this case particularly when you have a defendant who is making this decision basically within less than not even hours after he's been found guilty you know often with guilty pleas injury for others there's a lot of time before the actual waiver to you know sit at home or sit in yourself in custody and think about what's happening and make sure you understand there's more time to discuss things with your attorney here this happened very quickly and i think to the extent that mystery didn't present i think it shows the time pressure is under is shown by the fact that he tried to get out of this agreement just within a few days of feeling guilty and that's indicative of how the time pressure affected his ability to understand within a day rightly the the the verdict and  outstanding force testing would be the money that was found during a search of reason hartman and the cigarette that was found in the car i don't believe the results of those two pieces of evidence given that there was already plenty of other evidence in the state had plenty of evidence for the state to be confident enough in this case to indict mystery charges that carry a minimum sentence of life isn't at this point those two minor pieces of evidence just didn't have enough weight to justify the cigarette that shows really was in the car at some point but when there's evidence of other a few other times it isn't the car doesn't provide very strong evidence that he was in the car at the time of the shooting that's kind of  jurors who were strong supporter of the death penalty were also listed the only supreme court has held that when because of an error the judge the jury is improperly faced with the question of deciding  in that situation the death all haitian of the jury is there if the jury shouldn't be deciding whether the finish should be executed then the jury should be deaf qualified either and the the case on point here is people versus kids in kid the defendant had a court in a situation very similar to this one here decided that that was a reversible error move on to the last issue read mysteries also entitled to trial because his constitutional right to present evidence if we should agree with you on one of the first jewish yes and say yes reclined we have a right to appeal the second two issues are that appeal that's on the record that the d n a testing was being completed as quickly as it could be completed as that information was necessary for the state's attorney to make a legitimate and appropriate decision in deciding whether to seek or decline the death and that information is not available  and that is that is that was free trial a right no that was actually after the direct appeal was over the defendant waved his  you have an answer  trial the right process so even though reviewing courts are generally supposed to decide non constitutional to tional issues first and then decide constitutional issues all the issues are constitutional so i think this court addressed them in whatever or proper i also think in the interest of judicial economy given that all these issues are brief and that the p c an appellate waivers kind of right are part of the same agreement they rise and fall together to avoid deciding that issue now when it could just couple points on our roof or sixteen the state says that the rules directly because there is no specific consequence of case law provides an exception to that presumption no when there is negative language in the rule indicating that the act to be taken shall be all of whom were impeached by parents of statements by their own criminal record by their own potential involvement in the shooting so it was a closely balanced case and mr reed was prejudiced by his inability to present that