court my name is paul turner i'm with the federal public defender office in las vegas nevada i'm here this morning representing donald town the owner i'd like to reserve two minutes for a bottle and if the court will help me a little bit on that in case i don't no clock on most appreciated that thank you i have a few quick housekeeping items to note for the court in my opening brief under bail status i incorrectly indicated that my client had two consecutive life with sentences of course the truth is that these are life without possibility of parole sentences which i think is made clear otherwise but i wanted to note that for the court also on not page five of my reply brief i cited a case  of five issue that's currently before the court is deals with the package deal nature of the plea mr town in an interview in this case there are two other issues that are not certified and i'm going to assume for the moment at least that the court does not want me to get into those issues and if it does it will direct me to do so with respect to the package deal nature of this plea that there are two or three very important things to note here first of all the facts and i think the courts well aware of those facts you have multiple teenage defendants who are all being told that they are the quote last person to determine whether this plea will be accepted and that if they do not go along with this  correct and i think the explanation for that may way that on the evening of the fourth the night before they didn't even have the written plea agreement and there's no indication in the record that the subject of the package deal nature was even discussed the this case the judge certainly should have been told by somebody in that courtroom dealing with teenage defendants and the obvious peer pressure think about this peer pressure when you have a solid family peer pressure is real tough and you got a great mother a father my client didn't have a great mother and father and he's living with these numbers of people he's actually out in the desert living within a trailer if you will you know about peer pressure you don't get more career pressure in this ca think the argument was basically made on the basis course of this of the package deal that may have been some some argument in there about the lawyers i can't honestly tell you i remember the briefs reading i've read the briefs obviously but i don't remember precisely what was brief i don't believe there was any or circumstances because we're all within this bigger plea situation here we look at the circumstances here my client as the precentor court verifies that went to the judge after the fact here was as no to the pre sentence report on search record page eighty five that his ability was handicapped to understand language but the most simple communications so you not only have a teenage client you not only have a peer pressure but you've got somebody who doesn't understand very well and all of this  happening within eighteen hours most of it the morning of the fifth of january and i would i would submit that this is not a fair plea this is not a voluntary play this is not a knowing plea and this this case should be reversed  inconsistency between these comments that appear in the record that both mr towne and mr rove leader apparently were told they were the last to respond to this package deal i'm guessing that the reason council would like this court to order to reno and in order an evidentiary hearing is that this inconsistency was never dealt with in the state hearing the reason that the federal judge below did not order a hearing in the trial court i think it's important the other issue that's important is counsel takes that fact in counsel finds a conspiracy he finds counsel lied he's finding that all these felt pressured simply because i wasn't given enough time to review the document pressured because he was quite sure that he didn't my recollection the record is you didn't use the word pressure at that point when he when he was asked why did you feel pressured into signing it what he said was i felt pressured because i did not have enough time to review the document that fact along with the argument in the opening brief in this case where mr chapman specifically argued he was brought into the jury i think was the jury room was brought into a room with his lawyers the lawyers that we have to sign this document was and of that of the lawyer sign with the defendant the other defendants were sitting around the table that point in time town went in there in town was the only one according to his testimony who was signing the document no last at the hearing yet we had a day long evidentiary hearing i would object to the concept that we should go back and have another evidence your hearing in the state court simply to fix the mistakes perhaps that were made below the lawyer misled i think if mr harrison intentionally misled the client i think we had a big problem yes i can see that but there's no indication the record that that happened because this is a package deal i'd point the court to the beyond what i guess we could call the standard boy can play and that is whether or not there's an increased probability for x journal threats or external promises from other defendants that is what the kero court goes into and i point out there is absolutely nothing in here nothing in the record to support the fact that other defendants or other defendants attorneys made threats and promises as a matter of fact in the play hearing impacted by being told you are the last individual to sign it because now the veto power is the veto power is yours alone but i'd also point out to you in one of these package deals everybody has veto power and i'm not sure that that level of pressure is really that much higher because the second defendant to go into this also has been told power too and so going to be going to a prejudice big issue i'm not sure that there's really that much more pressure i would point out to the court t point out something explained as i was saying very important under kero judge mosley specifically asked this defendant repeatedly have you been threatened did you get any promises made to you or anybody close to you aside from those in the guilty plea memo and i would hope you would not send this back to district court simply to fix the mistakes that counsel didn't go through in the state evidence we're hearing they may have left a gaping hole in the evidence but they were given a hearing they were given that opportunity good lawyers were appointed to represent them if they didn't they didn't make their case then that should be the one in the chase that ought to be the end of the case if they left a hole in their analysis they lose it's that  because that's simply going to be problematic we may argue about prejudice and we may argue about whether somebody relied on that but i'm never going to argue that it's ok for a defense attorney like but i would point out that the issue here to the extent that the issue i other three but he wasn't allowed to because he really was the four but he was put in that position because of the lies to the other three does that mean his deal is all right as between the issue here is between this road leader defended in town to the extent that rogue leader may have been the one who was turned on the misrepresentation was made and i'm certainly not going to assume it was a lie by counsel but  extent that there was a miscommunication major road leader i certainly don't think that affects town i certainly do because there's no evidence for example the town knew that road leader at that time roeder was told he was the last one i don't think that's in the record that mr towne went last because since mr town has the burden here he did not show that he did not go last he cannot show that there was a misrepresentation i think that's a key issue should they have gone into that if the representation i would suggest to you between the court the court finding road leader incredible and the fact the description of these advanced in the opening brief where count saul points out that the only ones signing the document when they went into that group session was town that at least implies i agree it's indirect but there is some indirect implication at least talon was the last one to sign his last one to sign and there's no indication that  context a logical question from the court would have been mr town has anyone told you that your decision is related to the decision of anyone else in this or in this room that would be the first question from the court on a package of any relevance here this morning i don't think i think what i'm what we want to do is to have a federal evidentiary hearing i think federal court has an independent right if they feel that there's a fact in dispute that's never been resolved i think that i think they have a right to bargain is that is a contract and if the if the actual underpinnings for the entire contract are false the whole contract falls so i think i think in that hypothetical the whole package deal would come crumbling down even though mr towne may have been talked you know truthfully with at the end of this wine if the first three steps in the process are false the contract can't be enforceable because it's a joint agreement it's not a sniff it's not a several agreement it's a joint agreement  thank you very much