that we need to discuss what the record shows with whether it was a need for a hearing you can't issue the answer in making your argument fair point your honor and so the government has never disavowed the existence of a plea offer it instead says that it was accept from the government's position in the district court and it's briefing for this appeal that there was an offer characterize it as you will inform the more formal and so that should be enough incidentally to get us through the door for an evidentiary hearing on twenty to fifty five and the central problem here of course is that the district court denied my client the right to that hearing it is a low bar to get that hearing and it should be but district court inclined to give clients evident excuse me give petitioners evidentiary hearings to spite with this court has said and martin about evidence can consist of a copy of a plea agreement representations about  details and even uses at the end of all the things that it says can get you through the door etc my client has affidavits my clients made representations under oath there's also the information that the government said about a ple agreement but no particulars that's enough to get through the door to have the hearing so was a plea offer communicated to mr sawyer before trial yes as i understand it what words terms fifteen years and i don't know any more particular sets it yes that saying it was communicated to him seems inconsistent with some of the affidavits that he submitted from his mother and his grandmother right my client's not sophisticated his mother his grandmother submitted materials he was not responsible as i understand it for what the contents of those were they represent what their understanding is were the district court though should have a hearing to resolve these things it sounds like you're saying there needs to be a hearing to resolve the contradictions among the defendants petitioners evidence my client has stated it was a fifteen year offer if his family misunderstood what that essential term was i don't think that's in the way dispositive his family also says if that had been offered he would have accepted it but for the advice  counsel it was offered to me so there's a lot of confusion here but it's all on one side i think there is some inconsistency on the government's side of the ledger as well saying that whether there was a whether or not there get through the door need to be twenty to fifty five be evidentiary hearing and the district court said he didn't meet the threshold he did so far as establishing whether or not there was  the fifteen year plea offer because you do know why do you say it was on a winnable here's here's what concerns me the with the kinds of witnesses the government has to put on in cases like this are often very vulnerable and fragile and i've seen for example cases involving the production of child pornography where a defendant forces the victim to go to trial even his own trials to go to trial in the hope that the witness will crumble if the witnesses don't crumble then it looks like an unwinnable case probably use but before trial there is the hope that the government's case may fall apart because of these fragile witnesses and what and this of the approach mr sawyer is taking here again seems to offer the best of both worlds to a defendant i get to get to force the government to put these fragile witnesses on trial in the hope that they're on the stand in the hope that they'll collapse and if they don't then i can try to take advantage of the plea offer and blame it on  told him you know to your point about whether it's one of the not you can get fifteen years if you go to trial and lose so that's an important fact here in my client does go to trial doesn't get fifteen years gets fifty so that shows prejudice and i think for all of these deposed from any witnesses in the case about the existence of a plea offer i don't know what will consist of judge probably has no access because he's in a prison cell and then we point to these people and say he didn't come through with enough information and seem to have taken no notice of the fact they can't get it and the judge could order additional discovery in the case but he didn't elect to do that for all these reasons we think that the judge erred by not having the evidentiary hearing we asked that at a minimum be given it's appropriate with what the evidence that there was a fifteen year old offer well he contradicted himself here and the evidence was until sides of the issue all of the evidence he produced amounted to and said the fact that the affidavit is just the interested party say so doesn't make it less evidence and the district judge can't believe can't refuse to believe an affidavit without hearing right and he can't he  the district court face with his cut or addiction hearing all dispute about whether there was an offer and about when the offer was conveyed if it was ever conveyed to sawyer before trial after trial and then there's  potential dispute about what his lawyer counsel him about that but the fact that there is a material dispute is a reason to hold a hearing not a reason not to hold a hearing it's a dispute that he created among himself here are among possible offer anything court yes it went to the district currency the district court said that the defendants papers his affidavit and his scripts petition was di sufficiently particularized to create an issue about whether  was conveyed to his lawyer but his lawyer did not pass it on to him until too late how is the defendant ever going to provide a copy of the offer right that seemed to be the theme district court said well you haven't produced a copy of the o lawyer is trying to engage in self protection and that's been known to happen the lawyer won't provide it in the twenty to fifty five action the lawyers have to deny that any such thing happened we're going to end up with an on edifying swearing contest between the defendant and is what we're perhaps between the defendant and his lawyer and a lawyer for the government but are you really arguing that there is no evidentiary hearing in these cases unless either the prosecutor or the defense lawyer produces a copy of a written offered you know i'm not an i'm not a whole position what is it that a defendant might have in a situation where he says the lawyer did not pass this thing on to me properly that he might be able to produce beyond his face oh well he is in his case he said he learned of the offer after a trial there hadn't been passed deny what had taken place i don't know even to the supreme court said it can be a violation of the constitution for a lawyer to fail to pass a plea offer on to the accused right and what you're saying effectively what your brief says is if the lawyer fails to pass the plea offer on to the accused then there can never be a hearing to determine whether he failed to pass it to the accused because since the qs won't have a copy he can never get an evident hearing i believe the words that can't be right are next right i don't think that well i don't mean to take that position charge  requirement that you have to produce a copy of a written plea offer right so you seem to be saying that even if there is a perfectly clear affidavit enough to create a material issue of fact if it's inconsistent with any other get cases all the time we're going against contradict themselves we do have a rule that says that if a litigant added deposition swears under oath that x y and z are true he can't get a hearing by contradicting his own deposition unless he gives a reason we don't have any such rule about inconsistent affidavit and we don't and the rule is not absolute because it allows a person even when contradicting his own deposition to give a reason why he needs to correct his deposition right you're approaching this is if it were the first time in american judicial history that we had contradictory affidavits we get produced and concluded that it wasn't enough so our position that was in it an abuse of discretion and you just can't cite any decision of the seventh circuit ever sustaining a position like that that doesn't cover the case you asked about so martin was decided i think after this happened is the government now at least in the northern district making a record in the district court about what offers were and were not made when somebody goes to trial beseech the government to do that and i can't say whether or not it's actually happening in every case but i believe the practice has the court's advice has been disseminated