and four inches taller than he was not only that mr mills was an individual who had recently had multiple back surgeries a fact known by trammell the man who was accused of assaulting the jury returned a verdict of ten to two of the jurors belie that concept that this juror might even buy us was not a surprise to anyone mr mills had a brother named brian mills who was a supervisor at the major employer in the area the or i had a chance most of the individuals who live let you take us down that road you want us to go outside the record and make a finding that she had no one again over the actual evidence that she knew him in the records it's the earliest he worked the same she had she worked everybody on that she flew him so she so it's there and so on and so forth but don't we have to make a factual finally if we go the way you want to go actually i'm i'm not sure i'm asking you to make a for the us can do the evidence it was to do so alternately at the post conviction court show that brian mills was the supervisor who less than six months before the trial personally disciplined this woman that she resented that a lot of people in the plant were talking about this incident you haven't linked this jerk to bryan mills if the evidence that linked this jerk to brian mills which was the evidence  discipline ultimately abused impose conviction had been presented at the motion for a new trial the trial court more than reasonably probable would have granted that motion because the specific statement of the trial court was and this is in the e r i think i missed side of the page number of my in my brief i said it was two thirty five that's actually the arche page number page numbers two ninety three the statement of the trial court was in the absence of some evidence  of i'm pronouncing her brain didn't know as opposed to simply saying under the circumstances she might have known is insufficient he was looking for that evidence that evidence was there it was finally presented at the post conviction court level unfortunately when the post conviction court analyzed that evidence the post conviction court and accurately made the finding that this evidence post dated the trial post dated the wadi or post dated the motion for a new trial in fact this discipline was in december the crime was in march the trial was in the summer the evidence existed before the trial the evidence was available at the time of the motion for a new trial if the evidence of been presented based upon what the state trial court was saying it would have granted the motion for a new trial and this was a situation where krakow nsel didn't realize this was an issue yeah to brian mills that evidence was available pardon me didn't the supervisor deny knowing the juror at the motion for new trial to having any idea what copal though the juror might know him in that i don't think is inconsistent with the fact that the juror might resent that supervisor and he might not remember  her he testified he supervises swing shifts he's a train supervisor he moves around a lot it's a plant of nine hundred odd people you probably disciplines a lot of people that he does not necessarily remember the question is whether  suspended for a day she was told that this type of misconduct continues she'll be terminated she specifically resents it and that she believed it was not appropriate and all of that is in the e r at four seven seven or eight so bias i think it's a pretty basic request that you get the transcript of that juror's answer he didn't have that transcript and it wasn't as if he didn't know this was an issue he knew this was the  new trial he could have asked the trial court to bring her in and clarify the issue at that point so there were ways that he could have the issues if he properly supported motion for a new trial he didn't get a transcript he didn't clarify what the juror said he didn't do the investigation into who brian mills was and how brian mills might have been linked or cop a dollar when there was evidence available that would have linked the two and as a result with the trial court said w you don't have the evidence the evidence was there it was eventually brought out in post conviction where the post conviction court misinterpreted the evidence as occurring at a later date and denied relief on a finding that it could not have been no the district court properly ruled that yes in fact it could have been known it was there was available file counsel just didn't do the job he should have done he chose to file the motion once he appropriately chose about the motion he needs to do the work necessary to answered or rather he thinks she's answered mowle that's why those numbers are what he hears that are out there there's that frankly the answer yes to so i'm only followed by a follow up received well he asks whether i mean there's no indication that there's any kind of a hostile or adverse relationship between or any kind of relationship between jerk called and brian else he does his investigation b don't know her she says i don't know him so there's there's really nothing more more to do conveniently two and a half years later i have a long after he comes in and says oh yeah i did discipline her so she was what more w reasonably required to do to show that she was biased at that time and when both people say i don't know each other they don't know each other then what more is there for him to do was there another piece of testimony in the trial judge questioned all the positional jurors continuing to work for him she might have a reason to be biased towards the state and want to vote to acquit in fact there were two individuals who did vote to eclipse so that's why i think there is at this necessary necessarily  from one file to another the motion for a new trial was that focused among other things on this particular venture relationship or knowledge between the brother and that's your didn't didn't brian mil knew him because he was a foreman and he worked on all of the ships it's this standard and i don't want to belittle the standard but the standard is whether he was he received constitutionally  effective counsel and and it's not in the threshold this is not so high that he was required to go out and overturn every stone when neither of these individuals provided him any reason to do so and even if actual transcript of the motion for new trial is in the e r it starts page two seventy eight and continues for several pages it is basically focusing on bryan mills and whether or not he might know jerk apollo he discusses the fact that he had just come off  the fact that every employee might know him doesn't show the copper dollar did if the trial court had that evidence the trial court would have granted the motion for a new trial this wasn't a situation where trial remember him i didn't answer the question correctly was view and i did have a bias against jack mills richard jack mills because of my  relationship with brian mills just the fact that she knew him would be enough to grant a new trial automatically what the trial court says is in the absence of some evidence that ms copper dollar did no us and we think that the evidence of the discipline in connection with the fact that she was specifically asked about buying milk and this is a plan with fairly recent and that she apparently denied knowing him even though he was the direct supervisor who gave her the discipline and he discussed it with her and that she requested to be moved off a swing shift would provide that sufficiently strong indication that she was at least off her relationship with brian miller me ask you one question which wasn't released from custody if you give me just minute that's it appears that female his petition in august of zero three based upon what i i'm looking at his actual mission and the judgment she indicates to me that his release date was projected to have been in two thousand and three whether he was actually released in that time i'm i'm not sure but i have in mind is if he was released before  we do have subject matter jurisdiction because he is still subject to continuing what we term supervised release a term probation parole conditions of supervision and of course he is challenging the underlying conviction it's q thank you your