transactions that are believed to happen specifically your car yes jim interject real quick little bit of feedback maybe if you turn your volume down just a little bit we're just getting a little bit of noise when you speak hon  the reason they did not have evidence to support those st two allegations was because mister jenkins was if there really incredible witness he was a drug addict to thirty years he believed he had dementia and repeatedly in the head with baseball bats he admits that he would agree with anything the prosecutor said as long as it sounded about right but then refuses to answer questions because he can't remember the exact details so the court found those st two counts were not sufficiently supported that unlike the st two occasions there was no evidence that mister jenkins acquired drugs during the relevant time period on feb th based on the fact that detective brown  there is more evidence that was introduced at mit but not brought to the court's attention and counsel provided a defense strategy is his statement theory of the defense was that mister jenkins had fra mister jenkins can be seen in this video ringback rushing off camera and the audio was d turned on it was not for the thirty seconds or played the court but if the audio was turned on we can hear something being moved in the background for another thirty seconds before mister jenkins calls police to tell them he asked her drugs now given the council provided no evidence to support his theory of the defense and his theory was that jenkins had d retrieved his own drugs which to pray mister andrews also was effective filming present suggest that the court did not see the video there are only the absence of any mention to additional evidence no one through the court's attention to the remainder of the video or the need to review it and the court and when did not torrie evidence because it would make the reasonableness of this ruling that much less so with this evidence showing that mr jenkins had five controls police placed on him it was that much less reasonable to fund ringback a transaction  i do not intend to suggest that i know whether the court reviewed it or not however i felt it would be inappropriate to speculate the court did review this video without some affirmative indication on the record again if the court had the you know the reasonableness of the conviction not come from mister andrews and this is evidence which tends to support that theory d as opposed to speculation which he lost because he had no evidence and chose to issue the only evidence because excuse me presented no evidence and chose to avoid the risk of the only evidence he now we see a close parallel to the stand this court's decision and people b daily in which defense counsel had previously represented the confidential ringback source in a deliberate controlled substance charge and was now representing the defendant against  court found that it was not dispositive this court d found that if counsel had represented the witness some time ago many years before in a divorce case a matter unrelated to the drug charges facing his current audience then there might not been a i would note that in daily the court found the fact that council was expected to cross names for public about their relationship showed why it was relevant and why it was a personal conflict that  become privy to all sorts of privileged information representing this person and could not later use that information against the his former client even if the actual representation ended i believe the way the court what it was that counsel's representation of the witness could be seen as continuing indefinitely at least to the extent he would ever be called upon to cross examine those who are on their relationship and we stay that here once again council decides to cross examine its former clients who because we don't know what privileged information council had obtained from mister jenkins instead we see that the nature of the relationship meant that counsel was prohibited from using any information from his relationship with mister jenkins to file any motions in limine a to challenge the informant as dealing noted for competence will source will be a critical witness in almost every drug prosecution of this nature and household explicitly so a before trial that he was simply going to cross  honor i would agree that he was not representing them i believe however i believe he did have a concurrent obligation to both of them and again that is exactly the same as in daily or counsel's d representation of the informant and but had to cross examine the witness regarding the matter upon which he represented namond that did not occur here recently talking about a prior conviction that we're going to credibility your honor that because he had to cross examine the court on it with regard to the case it shows why the case was relevant and shows why this act on the attorney similarly here we have counsel actually does bring out the former affects but he doesn't go into any detail he is not able in any way to explore anything could have learned about jenkins or disability and tendency to hide drugs or from someone for instance you have a higher representation reason this is a personal conflict case is that we cannot know what privileged information counsel tank that's the nature of privilege but there was not ok i interrupt you for a moment what it mattered to your analysis  s prior conviction instead of in two thousand and sixteen was in two thousand and six yes your honor thank you for that question i believe that actually would make a big difference believe we could find guidance here in the  consistent rule of law which hope and ten years of prior convictions are going to be relevant now as their relevance wanes we go to that nd part of the daily decision the representation could be seen as continuing indefinitely at leniency on those who testified and he did not follow those controls but what's important here is that he was not just a bull after an offensive per he in fact arranged criminal activity on behalf of the b because nd january isn't a detective saw that this was not your job they were trying to get and he is instead of going into a building and staying there for a minute or two coming back out with drugs no money he's left alone in his own home time is specific they won't use just mandible they have to have this business relationship as complementary source identifier and through that relationship jenkins became an entity assisting the prosecution because he how do you get around the fields case where the supreme court held that a person does not meet the definition of an entity when it comes to whether or not there is a per i don't see it as getting around feel so much in fields they argue that all state's witnesses were entities assisting the prosecution court found that was not true the supreme court found the st and said nd category of personal conflict are separate distinct and this separate conflict through mister jenkins close relationship a c s one to one man and in prosecution that arose as i mentioned well before trial again nd category arises trial witnesses and that is what they are you can feel that all witnesses town here we have become put to rest before trial counsels making pretrial assertions based on it but again more importantly fields never actually addressed whether that regard do you have any authority whether it's case authority dictionary definition that was support your assertion that an individual a person can be and yes your honor and that would be for contract law where even us a corporation or a business entity held by a ringback single person is separate and distinct based on the through contract and the special obligations of privileges that entity would have only through this relationship ringback and it is specifically the evidence of the contract would be lease that shows that this was in this case an entity assist morning with respect to the recent doubt argument the standard of due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt it pertains to the question of whether the record evidence was sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt of the guilt and so that means that th court has to look at the record evidence and not necessarily the trial court's findings in a bench trial situation because the same standard of review applies to both bench trials and jury trials and because this was a bench trial the question still is is the record evidence sufficient to prove the case the prosecution's case all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt and so that's essentially the totality of the the evidence before the trial court of which  which was not just harry jenkins to testimony as the informant but the fact is that after the defend it was inside jenkins place for about a minute and then the police then try to stop him he attempts to flee that stop defendant has a two hundred dollars a cream recorded by money on him the question is why did he get that money and jenkins says because the defend it delivered him drugs had him transaction that was although not entirely clear it was in fact recorded on find that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to their transaction so therefore the trial just the trial court's reasoning was was reasonable in this and in fact because they the a reason without the st two does not require the trial court also to find a reasonable doubt as to the rd transaction for which there was different circumstances and much more crop aeration and with respect to the next issue because people's nothing in the record to overcome a presumption that the trial court in fact reviewed all the evidence that was admitted at the trial and so therefore a question of of ineffective assistance of counsel the record has to show prejudice and if the trunk or its reviewing this evidence then it really just gets down to a claim of well it's defense counsel ineffective providing a reasonable assistance by not of actually highlighting that part of the  unidentified sounds in the background of the video for example and more forcefully arguing the points but here that the trial court was well satisfied with the proof of the rd counts despite the arguments that according to defense counsel's closing argument that there was a recording of it was an hour long and there were rooms that the police did not search so the trial court was already well aware that there is at least a possibility that jenkins could  hand to hand transaction is occurring in front of the covert video surveillance they defend it is unable to persuade me his burden of persuading that there was sufficient prejudice for his claim that essentially what it would be reduced to that defense counsel should have provided a better closing argument or published additional portions of the video for the trial court for its review and with respect to the per se conflict arguments this is sort of a creative argument by the defense because downey had represented the entity and i do not know of anything in the record that shows that machall dannie ever represented the entity c s once you've won nine that this sort of like corporate type  which the defendant constructs here it is according to his argument if that is in fact an entity separate from and jay can see individual where is the showing that macedonia ever represented a separate entity from jenkins individual so there wouldn't necessarily be any sort of like representation of the defendant and and it assisting the prosecution macedonia had represented henry jenkins the individual attempting to do away with the requirement of showing contemporaneous representation in cases in which they the person is a witness for the prosecution so that cut categories more limited because you have to have contemporaneous representation where for the purpose of an entity assisting prosecution contemporaneous representation is not a requirement but here i think the what's overlooked by the defense argument is that there is no representation of a separate entity by macedonia so even if you've constructed a separate entity it considered it to be a separate entity there has to still be representation by medical downey of that entity and i don't know that that's in the record because  attorney for daley at trial but he'd also help secure jock issues cooperation his cooperation agreement then it resulted in undercover bice from daly so therefore  that made that prior that cry representation continuing for purposes of the department that it be contemporary contemporaneous trial with trial with that very key element is missing in this situation and what would make it contemporaneous and without that sort of like link that is missing from the this case that it was in the daily case the representation does not continue and it doesn't it doesn't mean that's contemporaneous with the trial of the defendant here so that's if the key distinction is that here the prior conviction upon which macedonia had represented henry jenkins was a completely closed case it didn't have any connection to this case this case it was it is not result in any sort of cooperation agreement like in daily  and so the the mike emery rule i watch the defendant realize it's a it's a judge made rule that limits the consideration of prior convictions for purposes of impeaching the credibility of a witness but the prior conviction is admissible and so i didn't understand how the argument could be made that the somehow confidences or it matter when the only thing to defend a defense attorney macedonia would have to do is some peaches for clients about a prior conviction which is a matter of public record and it does not involve any sort of play confidences of so there is no limitation on cross examination for purposes that the actual conflict of interest argument and also with their final argument additional source agreement being done with counsel that was not dispositive the court in giving an example did not say oh if it had been the same exact charge one year later then there would be no problem the court said if it had been many years later on a completely different type of charge there might not have been and what is important here is again counsel cannot tell us what religion permissions he got counsel cannot get to further impeachable including mister jenkins represented no the fact the template used to represent the person d who is now is that dumb or now acting as a victim for purposes of the prado creates the conflict it would be in congress to argue or to hold needed to make his argument so it continued and when they came back and said resume your argument then the court examined counsel and never gave mister andrews an opportunity to do so so what's really at issue here is that once he proceeded pro se he had full do process rights at that