suppress and other things of that nature whereas attorney tom what's testified that they didn't get into the facts of the case nor did they talk about a motion to suppress they talked about things like u turns experience and then at that meeting tom what's told nick that he had had a couple of consultations recently with the fan in about possibly represent and that's tough words basically said role in all of this because this isn't the case of christian shephard versus anthony topless the case is the people versus christian shephard so we really need to talk about the state's role in this and not so much what the role of anthony thomas's in regards to the family and that's i think that secondary to why probably should have focused on more in my brief my argument today will focus more on the state's role because we're talking about suppressing i don't know what we could argue that these the state's attorney could have done differently here i mean he has concrete evidence here that the defendant to solicit in march or and he certainly allow  the judge's decision below and support this you know this type of discussion because i just don't see there was no benefit from any wrongdoing afternoon wasn't wrongdoing here idea he did it in exchange for the state not objecting to a formal all request that franken bryant had made it was going to happen and he events were set in motion for this to happen before tom quince got involved certainly before nick got involved there's just no benefit to the state here based on anything pompous may have gone wrong if if he had done anything wrong at all would you say they have done  trial judge should have seen that this is the seven this wasn't tainted by any type of conduct and misconduct by anybody this was again this was set in motion long before either of these attorneys stepped in to you please the court counsel a must see the palace and questions for me i expect that it does off i just want to make a couple of statements about this case i think when we take a look this at this fact pattern in a more abstract is asking the attorney to participate in that process because the record in this case was that when franklin bryant reached out to law enforcement he said contact my attorney tony town quits and he wrote down mr tuck which is phone good but don't do a lot of work because here's why i got i'm pretty well got a deal i'm i got a guy that i'm pretty i haven't wrapped up a day or two he's going to kill the victims the prosecutor and those two meetings there was information discussed relative to the sex case which includes what statements were made and that they were potentially co morbidity with whom between christian shepherd and attorney thomas on may fourth and ma when sheppard one was decided we then made the strategic decisions to say well christian you're going to take the stand and i believe the state's attorney's office called mr thompson waits and there was some discussion as to whether or not confidentiality and force i'm not seeking to hold anyone in violation of the air you see rules but both the state and and in the defense in this case have cited to a number of cases unfortunately a lot of them  deal with family law matters or civil matters where parties are moving to disqualify attorneys due to conflict of interest issues and the issue of the rule itself is really the framework to say heir the seaboard i know mr tuck was very raw i could easily see myself in the situation and it's unfortunate that it had to happen but the real issue is if there was an attorney client relationship and if he had obligations to both clients just based on some of the evidence that was presented that mr sheppard was more credible ultimately we had a judge made a finding that there was an attorney client relationship based on the ones that were discussed and indeed information that was presented to him he's very sure that the state's attorney in the case will want to introduce that evidence in the sec's case as well as any subsequent prosecution as other crimes evidence and consciousness of guilt so that's where the prejudice is in the police with it and then they just come and say hey we we want your guy to worship your plan over here we're wire and he's and that you know they just yet go ahead on and so what is negotiate the terms of this potential agreement and then it leads to the critical legal question still one what is and do with the end of it because what when the state please the role in that ok because this is not a foregone conclusion this is a you room the state what they said was this we're going to get an attorney who represents both parties to help us get information against the law with this have known that w any conversation involving mr nick and mr trump was this rick only chose to reveal his role in all of those after a hearing had been conducted or prior to the first trial judge making his ruling and so in the sense that how how would very least during a conversation with mr tower which i believe the record also shows that mr naik knew that attorney tom what's a net with shopper before that well during that conversation when mr rooney gets the that just means if the representation in a court of law it person can still form an attorney client relationship with somebody without having file filing appearance that's why the case law says it doesn't require a contract for employment it doesn't require consideration change it requires the manifestation of consent between the parties and the formation of an attorney client relationship has always been something that's client centric but not necessarily from the perspective of a more what about the whatever mr but you agree that once the word out that his client is planning on killing a commit a series of a roof it criminal then he he has an ethical obligation not careful who you talk to my your plan to kill people that he can't do that i disagree with that for two reasons the first thing is this is at the time of the conversation mr tom points has no direct firsthand knowledge but its client has engaged in any will agree to disagree now let me ask you this is would you describe this recount with his behavior here this is just outrageous i would also agree with that and so what public policy is is further here by the act by excluding that by the the the public interest that's being served here is this is that if a situation like this comes up again it's going to force the prosecutor to decide how to proceed to to say to or or a tape recorder statement of the defendant say exactly what this guy said he said the words it's no longer he said he said and this guy is saying this because the state offered him a deal he's got a motive the  because if you're going to kill your witnesses your freedom what they have to say however the prosecutor's job is not to secure convictions it's to ensure justice which means the dollar to a defendant's right to a fair with this slow i don't believe that there's been any evidence that he actually disclosed in the confidential information the one thing we don't have is what if anything he may or may not have discussed with franklin bryan because that would be shepard when there was discussion as to the fee exchange and communication as to that when there were discussions as to the fact i'm not going to get into ever that two wrongs don't make a right you know the fact that the fact that we may be in the wrong by not filing himmel claim by by by saying that the court may not be right in its own action enough on some sort of himmel claim or something like that i i can't sit here and say and hard about that i understand the court's argument i had i thought this was a going to so i would tell the court this was a grave concern of mine personally that's why we made the choice we consulted with other charities and they said we were not obligated lawyer and his client was the basis of the trigger the exclusionary rule to exclude the state's evidence against the fender the lawyers top was for a few years after it happened council is in is suggesting that that implies that nick was trying to hide this meeting not because the exact opposite nick didn't bring this up because nick didn't think it mattered because nick in think the defendant for this crime i think obviously that the state had a duty to go for all this and so i just simply didn't do anything wrong to exclude the evidence here as they asked have done something wrong and i still don't know what that might have been