was then briefed by many council took point where i got it and then it proceeded fort out as to a on a short track the case was pending for a number of years than i believe the postcondition petition alone judge was pending for probably eleven years i think one of the things i that portion of the post conviction petition at the at the first stage but the court did the court let this proceed to the second stage and at the second stage which means that these are arguments that are not frivolous or that have not been waived the co even if it was a mistake the court found that there had to be something i mean the course it didn't simply just say at the national time when it went from the first stage of the proceeding into the second stage of the proceedings that this cannot be brought there's actually nothing on the record to discuss whether or not the get to a third stage even on the first set of issues that you raise you need it's the petitioners burden to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation of and and that standard  that level of showing does we believe the petition as a whole does because there's two issues there walk with each other there's the issue of wretched kind of the courts brought up whether or not his constitutional rights as to a search with a certain unreasonable search was issue of whether or not it was a consensual search or a non consensual search if the issue of arrested never come up the proceeding would have gone differently it would have been a different proceeding altogether but they had one i mean that we have to do something  specific issue that was and specifically as to whether or not they can set the question becomes whether or not if there was no motion to quash the arrest and there was a separate motion to suppress the the fruits of a search of illegal as it goes through if there are other questions just the other issues that were raised it affected us this year here's one question regarding the expert analysis of the evidence that was recover to any further post conviction persist proceedings after you've been dismissed in the second stage unless you make a substantial somebody and you can't make a substantial showing unless you can demonstrate that the trial would have ended differently but couldn't individual's house that they argue was linked to mr william kunstler yes actually this is a judge just for the actual innocence claim there were several letters and information received by mr linnaeus and his previous counsel many of his previous counsel in which there's a statement from an a t f agent beebe regarding this whole collaboration to set him up there they're not in this letter sent to him there's a letter sent letters from tim richardson who is an individual who is dating this marshal alan marshall and some other information regarding what happened had been positive this was not in many respects like the case the defendant relies on sutherland because in sutherland the evidence against the defendant was primarily physical that it's on this case as this cour we knew he could correct and as i as i said the trial work in this case went out of its way to make sure what it was all of the project was not required to do stuff that the defender do about his rights testify and i believe unless there's something you'd like you've discussed with the actual innocence arguments which i think that that you were addressed as well as i certainly think that i believe that if you have no other questions press a couple of questions are asked by your honour's number one one issue the council brought up when he was reading the court's decision says that the fed the linking of the defendant to the bomb that was found in the house that's where the hair follicle was on the bomb that was found in the house his counsel at the time is truck household would not take an opportunity to get that tested what funds would have been provided that doesn't know whether or not it puts his client more or not because he never took the time to test evidence that is sitting in front of him where the funds are better better before him to test it that's how is that strategic trial preparation not to test something that that there's not the one thing that's common between what's in the bomb and what's at the defendant's house it's guitar right there's nothing else so why wouldn't you get a test it would be ineffective not a good test judge with all due respect that's the first thing that a defense counsel should do wired to meet in order to show in effect this judge i believe so if you take that put it together with the fact that his lawyer told him that if he testifies he can only testify in this matter in a certain way which involves which set forth in his affidavit that you have to admit certain things that the cops are saying are true he would have testified he would have testified even if the court found that there was no question in the statement that he didn't give that statement this trial would have been very different if mr ate the stuff would have been tested be  well is that correct that i disagree if the defendant sitting on the stand in his attorney's asking him questions to get him to answer what he's supposed to start fighting with his lawyer during the trial that's what you're asking to be done at this point that if that is your response attorney on the record whether or not he's there for my stand the issue was asked mr levy if he had if you understood his right to testify he said he did he waited but that's based on the advice given to him by his lawyer his lawyer told him he would only ask them certain questions he ha certain ways i think fighting in front of the jury with her and it that's detrimental how can that even happen if the lawyer doesn't ask the fed the questions she can ask them across there's never going to get up and ask anything then how does he get a story out so he made that