court carmen hernandez foretelling global counsel table with me or the counsel for the other two defendants none of us represented the defendants during the trial of the case after trial an your honor essentially in this case we're asking the court to remain and for receipt for hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel this is one of many cases that are referred to as stash reversed in stash house cases which were brought forward with her prosecuted investigated by the a t f throughout the united states think there were more than a thousand cases on there being litigated all over the united states and in chicago  something like ninety something more than ninety percent of the defendants or all either african american or latino kids in my case mr lobel was a young man in his twenty's had no prior convictions for any crimes of violence originally was deferred but then when this case rose was brought back for more than for almost a year a good friend of his at the behest of the a t f or other agents tr get him to sell drugs the only thing they were able to accomplish were a fourteen grand sale of cocaine in july of two thousand and twelve and in february of twenty thirteen my client lent his friend seven hundred dollars because his friend said he needed the money to purchase drugs and at that point they went and met the agent one of the undercover officers the a friend handed to get involved in the stash in the first morris him into it by saying i have a renovation project in the store fonder you interested because my client had to work more than forty five hours a granite place he lived in d c and drove only smells at sentencing i introduced all the records of his employment you know his time sheet which were not introduced by his trial counsel and also phone records which show that his friend had contacted him one hundred and thirty one times during the two months really to see the final meeting for the alleged conspiracy to commit the h took place we believe that as a matter of law that's the type of inducement that's necessary to prove an entrapment case and right to me to be clear in your press mission then is that with that evidence  case and you say those cases are what comes on one of the other one i believe smith the one involved i'm sorry they're in the i don't have them on the off the top of my head one involved in the sale of language language that the supreme court is considering it in to my is identical to the language in nine twenty four c the language is that the supreme court is considering in sixteen b the language and and there is no difference it's identical but it but the the substantive argument i don't know what the non constitutional argument that a conspiracy could not be a crime of violence i rely on this court's decision in  in twenty sixty nine believe for the court found that any attempted robbery was not a crime of violence for purposes of my belief or career fender or an armed career criminal case and the end of this court's reasoning was that there was in effect if there are multiple factual issues that cannot be resolved by this court another must return to the district court for a full fledged hearing and then this case stands an interesting decision because obviously the defendants sought new counsel after trial and the district court i know the district courts are fairly leading in winter when a conflict arises but the defendants position before sentencing was that they had received ineffective assistance counsel and to the point at at least the court for it may have been for multiple reasons but at least the court granted you counsel so i believe there is  going back to the entrapment you know the fact that the trial counsel did not introduce subpoena or introduce either the work records which or in a criminal case when you plot documentary evidence that supports your claim that supports it then his claim there's absolutely no strategic reason for not investigating subpoenaing and introducing that and it was work record believe even to be not a matter of law school defense at a minimum it is a mitigating factor to the extent that it reflects that the defendants may not be as government's argument that these guys came in prepared to do this and they're going to very very have the guns there they're on video there's no video of the guns there on video coming into this warehouse i mean script that they use the same agents using the same you know they make this they make the crime less morally culpable because they tell him that the person it's someone who different to drugs to and they own their own money and the also have a person on the inside who's going to help them pull it off so it makes it less dangerous and less morally culpable because we're not just you know trying to steal money we're trying to get back our goods so the whole my argument to the court is that the whole case is wrapped up around the failure of defense counsel to argue entrapment and that failure in my in my opinion is based on a misconception which was also adopted will of the person which is the standard articulated in glover just the opposite lovo and his co defendants indicated that they were not realize that they were ready and willing to engage in the conspiracy they brought the guns they brought the tools of the robbery they boasted about their ability to complete wrong arm robbery they rejected repeated opportunities to draw so i'm not racist there wouldn't have been any  and we can go through each one of the different arguments that opponents raised that i didn't hear her making some of these other other arguments here but i guess my response would be some of these issues are simply legal like issue that this court can resolve and the other issues are conclusively demonstrated in the record so there wouldn't have been deficient performance and or and or and this is all articulated in the government's brief or  arguments on why those were the admissible anyway so there was a new vision see if opponents argument is true those tapes would be you know in audible they wouldn't be prejudicial the jury would get this trial tapes and it would really that you know to the extent that somebody can hear the audio and the tenor of the ways someone can see what's happening on the video they're all admissible for those purposes separately so you know when the court is looking now that ineffect assistance is out looking at that helen's having been arguing the other merits of whether the tapes were miscible now they're arguing that the defense should have the jacket on these bases and you know our argument is that there's no deficiency because that page word hey i can't hear on that tape what's happening there and and there's a discussion and there's a more accurate translation of that what's happening at that time so you know that all of those two whether there's ineffective assistance that the defense did to that and i would argue that that they did periodic we make objections not enough to reserve to get themselves out from playing error but they did jack get warnings and in any event i think that the deficiency prong else that was admitted because the jury would have been able to make anything out of that because if there are no further questions about the ineffective assistance claim i would want to address briefly some of the the conspiracy offenses aside that the government brought the guns or the drugs into reality into the operation and that's not the situation here that the government's evidence and even the public logo testified that he brought the guns he said he said to sell them but the evidence here is that the government did not provide the guns so there was no guidelines because the government's conduct in there for me you are in big we are in a political this case is just a you're the automobile exception because you have a whole series of conversations between law or worse and officers and balance where they talk about what they're going to bring to this final meeting in order to conduct  dealer which would be inconsistent with the argument that hey we were worried about not contraband and such and they are actually to do a search of the interior of the vehicle i don't think listings are inconsistent i mean if the officer didn't didn't search the enclosed areas of the car the officer did think that there were weapons in the car which is why he drove it they didn't wait for a tow truck they did not take it to the  it eventually to the a t f headquarters because they wanted it to be in a location where it was actually guard because they knew that there were weapons in the trunk of the car but you know the course point is ok well they they thought they were weapons they didn't search for them immediately they  didn't have to under the i mean the only exception they had probable cause because they could've found the tools of the you know the robbery which was the offense within the car so they had probable cause to search all areas of the car from the moment of opponents arrest on so the fact that they didn't that they sort of bifurcated that that the officer picked up the hoodies and took them initially and then they waited and they actually obtained a warrant for the enclosed spaces of the car so the fact that he waited doesn't mean that there was some sort of fourth amendment violation with a few shirts and jeans and whatnot and i would disagree a policy opening brief takes the was the things that were sitting on the seat the hoodies that was permissible under these other rationales and even if the court disagreed as the car suggested earlier that was the least of the government's evidence in this case this the government had overwhelming evidence of this conspiracy and we have opponents on the video we have them to peeling pictures of the target of the robbery we have them showing up to the final meeting we have them bringing guns we have them on video sometimes saying that they're prepared to conduct the robbery in the final day there is conversation in english to his giving orders and he's speaking at least some of the time in english the last the final day is about a forty minute videotape  just a couple of corrections on we did in our opening brief mention the fact that the tapes were in on foreign language and that is a it so there is a reference there to it it's part of the argument that was made with respect to the suppression of the takes and what and what made it so harmful is that i bolstered the testimony of the of the officers there testifying more than a year after years after the events and but because of the audiotapes that they are claiming they can hear or they can remember then that bolsters their testimony otherwise with that you've got is somebody testifying about an event that happened two years earlier so we think it was very problematic and of and of course the reason there  transcripts is because the certified transfer the translator said we can't transcribing this we can't translate this because it's not clear enough for us to produce a translation with respect to the argument on nine twenty secretary does not qualify as a crime of violence as a matter of war we did not fire on it but we certainly make the argument that we aren't just arguing that it's a they this are you know we made that argument and moved on to make this argument so again kuwait crime doesn't meet either the nature of the offense nor the element of the offense twenty four c requirements and i think it would be consistent with this course decision  supreme court case and again the argument that the government is making here in the argument the court considered and in considering and trapped men either as a defense or as a mitigating factor is this notion that they had the before the crime because by definition entrapment defense is yes we committed the crime but something happened that made this commit the crime we should excuse it and we believe that that the government's argument on