because the government was right the government was right when it spotted a conflict of interest and notified the parties that a conflict of interest existed from the very moment that the trial attorney filed his notice of appearance when mr  appearance the government let him know telephonically that he had a potential conflict of interest the reason he had a conflict of interest was that he had previously represented it witness a proposed government witness who had testified or who had gone to trial decisions that were pertinent to the case this is a luminous case involving significant amounts of discovery but what mr womack did was he continued to represent even though he had previously indicated that he would conflict significant events had developed and mr womack was already taking decisions making decisions that were detrimental to his client and as a result of this conflict of interest some of you could  so i want to point to the government's response to this they st said that this was an actual conflict of interest in january of two thousand and seventeen they said that it was a conflict of interest because and the government you honor is the one that's in the best position to spot these things they have all the evidence they understand exactly what is going to be taking place at trial but in january two thousand and seventeen they say that this is an actual conflict of interest because mr womack the trial attorney isn't sharing d with his client crucial information crucial information that is extremely detrimental that his client is rejecting the plea bargain as he doesn't january of two thousand seventeen he rejects the plea bargain and according to the government as he's going through these discovery hearings he is telling the government he's telling the court i'm not reviewing any information that has to do with this witness what is that the in the moat in the response to the motion in limine they say this information is extremely detrimental this witness is going to be the witness that connects the dots he connects the dots between this horse and to give the court a little bit of background what this case was involving was but ultimately never tested he never testified because the government because the conflicted attorney stipulated to all of the government's exhibits immediately prior to trial so that's another adverse effect that is very concerning and and significant enough itself so not only is he not sharing the extremely detriment detrimental evidence information with his witness with his with his client he then files a motion in limine the court tells him this is not a bunch of a will when this evidence comes up you'll have to address it at that point at which point the government says well i believe that we have a stipulation and m constant without consulting with the independent attorney that not have a conflict or did not have as much of a problem he stipulates to all of the governments of it and that should be an additional concern so was is fairly clear that as soon as the attorney begins to make detrimental decisions to his client as a result of the case law as a result of a conflict of interest then he then he has an actual conflict that's when the actual conflict occurs and it can occur at the very beginning and it can occur at the very at but but here we had it shot through united states versus martinez and that is his st arches and i do have to cite here judge united states versus martinez and that an actual conflict of interest and so usually what happens and typically the case all unfolds like this government says disqualified as attorney the judge then disqualifies him and that is appealed ok and so and that would be right but what he was not informed of was the extent of the conflict he wasn't told that this witness that the attorney wouldn't be reviewing the information connected to this witness he wasn't told  developed with us that you not reach the merits of this of this argument so that we can pursue it under twenty to fifty but we have the opportunity to fix this now i think that the court has the ability to to look at this in the entirety and say look was hired to deal with the testimony from this edwards witness did this year and even i don't know about that and that that's something we don't know so the last time that the government makes this allegation is in april two because that was that that that final vs a hearing was never help and so all that was never there was never hope so certainly when he's making the decision to go to trial or plead guilty he did not have that womack and he has the conflict of interest is that he has an interest to his former quite as a duty to his former client he has to maintain his confidence he has to maintain his work product  shouldn't be the one deciding to stipulate to all this that should be done with a conflict free lawyer additionally as sort of a i don't know i don't know what you call it he's on top of hamburger you have d the these we have number one mr womack does not share all of that government's evidence with his client while he's making the trip the crucial trial or plea decision that's number one number two  stipulates all d of the government's up and that is the concern garcia in defense of his client if there was such information and we don't know if there was such an i submit to the court there's a lot of stuff that's not in this record mr garcia did testify in another  testimony basically was that he was he was he handled the horses for it was at the us that's pretty much what karl is nyan did and he testified in this case and for that reason and in part the prosecutors decided not to call mr garcia when we got to probably had kind of a mess here because there was a potential conflict part is the confidentiality the other is the duty of loyalty that he showed that womack owed to both to both d clients  gore i think that duty of loyalty has to mr garcia would not have arisen however until mr garcia actually testifies that which point mr womack is going to have to vigorously cross examine try to undermine perhaps demonstrate that mr garcia is lying possibly i don't really think that's what was was there but that's what the potential conflict and garcia never testified so mr womack was never that choice main players in this case they were sources of drugs but the horses that were involved in this case were horses that the theory hours were buying it was sort of a parallel activity similar to the activity that the trevi races i saw him and the horses i believe he handled the horses for though he wasn't called to trial because of what another witness correct carlos nyan covered all of that so the government didn't know this witness was going to say that at the trial until the well i don't want to speak for the prosecutors judge i know trying cases that when you get into trial you actually hear how the testimony goes you make an assessment and you make a judgment that ok we're not going to take the risks with this other witness we've got enough we'll get to the jury i think can persuade them and there were some other very strong witnesses against mr against the appellant concerning what he did in relation to the drugs we're also in garcia knew nothing about the drugs garcia didn't so far as i know and i don't believe the records show that that mr garcia was involved in horse transactions with d a v audiologist they were parallel they were with drug proceeds but they weren't they weren't cross each as kind of like they were both buying at the wal mart and they were connected but they weren't engaged in the same transactions together and because he never testified in these conflicts as to loyalty and as to confidentiality they never oversaw the discovery and the magistrate judges memorandum and recommendation finds that all of the discovery was provided there was there is reference in a number of the pleadings to meetings between in early two thousand and seventeen this was about january to seventy two thousand seven hundred before the trial to lay it all out and say what do you want to do do you want to plead or not and mr v arreola came back and said no i don't want to plead i want to go to trial so he heard what the government's case was going to be he had that explained to him in a face to face meeting and made the decision to that's when the government when the prosecutors were concerned that oh my god now we're going to have a trial it's not going to go away it we thought was a problem or was going to be a problem once we got into trial and to to grant relief basically says well once mr womack is in the case nothing and the court says he can stay in the case wh remedy trial d and reversal that just that just doesn't seem like that that's the the the most effective way to resolve this and and i say that that's a sort of a prudential consider the circumstances there wasn't an actual conflict the conflict never came to pass because mr garcia was never on the stand and mr womack was never put to the difficult decision of vigorously representing mr viola perhaps womack's representation terminated terminated several years and mr garcia after he was convicted at trial struck his own deal with prosecutors and austin ended up testifying and ended up getting his sentence reduced therefore in his trial and womack because he no longer represented no longer had not legation to see to it that mr garcia had opportunities to get acceptance of responsibility or credit for cooperation whatever he may have had an obligation not to undermine it he may have an obligation not to vigorously cross examine him and show him at trial and show on trial that for example lied withheld information whatever it might be and we don't know  speculating but that never arose and what's significant i think the controlling d thing in is the circumstance and mr garcia never got to the stand in because he didn't because the government basically d said we're not going to put on our evidence see only way we can we can protect this is the only way we can do something about what will be an actual what will be an actual conflict when mr garcia takes us we elected not to going to trial without it if anything if anything adversely affected some th they filed a motion to reopen the conflict house for tearing apologized record on appeal five hundred and forty five dollars they they then called an actual conflict of interest we agree with that that statement there it became an actual conflict of specific facts to tell when the government received mr womack motion linny which attempted to eliminate his testimony they didn't just sit by and say well this is a this is a cumulative witness what they said was this is that they were  response and in their conclusion they said exclusion of the witnesses testimony even temporarily by motion let me is inappropriate because the witness is an extremely relevant fact witness with direct knowledge of its conspiracies that they didn't say that he was which talks about the witnesses involvement with mr villareal rallies these are things that were never shared with or at least in april two thousand and eighteen were not being or two thousand and seventeen were not being shared with m regarding weaver not so there was never any additional hearings after august of two thousand and sixteen nope no d actual evidence cherry here there's nothing in the record did not that continues and that was the source of the conflict was that he had a duty to lose his former client and because he had a duty to his former client he couldn't fully represent the survey the reality relevance and he couldn't formally or fully represent him u are there d any further questions runners thank you god thank you very much