pursued the morning tracie dressing up for petitioner keenan roker said this case if you look at the case it's one of those ones where you say what's wrong with this picture and if you trace it backwards you could find  everything seemed to go wrong with this case once mr roper seen got you counsel that is prior to the time nancy cunningham was appointed to represent him he had entered into a plea agreement for thirteen years was in court ready to accept the claim that she was incompetent at that point to that point initially ok and then along the way she gets through discovery correct correct and then according to robeson they have some conversations about the thirteen year deal correct right and again she it ok so she does her discovery she does she looks into her stuff and when she left with she's left with a case where mr overstand has been identified by a number of people as being one of the shooters in a case where there's twenty one bullet casings found there's been twenty one shots fire years more than what the plea agreement had contemplate i think the issue is still the stain that is they were taking a gamble in a case where the end where there really was no defense she you know this was an experienced public defender her former public defender she was not a public defender of the time but you know she used her experience and judgment to decide that she thought that he had a chance of prevailing actually when just with one second because i what i find troubling is not so much not so much her decision that her thinking that that you could prevail and get an assault the deadly weapon or in some some lesser charge or maybe even the witnesses would show whatever he she has instituted you thinking about the time he went to try to time if you have a dialogue with the judge the thirteen year deal the thirteen year offer was still on the table and there was never any discussion by her with him with respect to whether or not he wanted to take that deal and n what she could do with the case at trial if that's it if that's your attack them i think you have a very weak argument the focus has to be on what she did with a thirteen year deal and whether she gave him the opportunity to accept it at  that it was not and it was not just a thirteen year deal both the trial judge and the power and that and the prosecutor both have said that they were they were actually open to something less than thirteen years in fact the trial judge it was uncontrover that at the evidence you're hearing that he fully expected a settlement that is that he thought the prosecutor was open to something less than thirteen years in this county and simply never did anything she neither discussed it with mr rove or said nor contacted the prosecutor again to  trial judge said there had been a discussion of something less than thirteen years yet you still fail to do so do something so i don't see how the that can be an unexplored issue especially because the magistrate in this case never made  we're left with is that at the end of that play discussion she believes that there was a ten year offer the judge believes that there were still some play simply discussions going on about something less than thirteen years the prosecutor had indicated during that she was that she was receptive to something less than thirteen years and cunningham simply lost the only thing we know for certain is that there was a thirteen year offer on the table there was that here although there really is no dispute about that that there's no dispute on the table and that at the end of the proceeding there's nothing in this record that indicates that she had any of course what's with the got the trial once i got the trial that there's nothing in the record that indicates that she ever had any kind of discussion with them regarding the thirteen year offer and asking whether or not ok you take this offer  yours the consequences that's absolutely true and in addition she also knew at that point that one of her reasons for thinking she might prevail at trial was that they might have some difficulty getting the witnesses in and at that same time the prosecutor indicated that her witnesses that she had are witnesses ready and so to the extent that maybe she was holding out hope that the witnesses would attend at that time when the plea offer was still open she knew that the witnesses were going to attend the trial the other comment i just wanted to make with respect to to to to this day that continued throughout she the reason she was so vehement about wanting something less than the thirteen years was because she believed she was being penalized by the prosecutor and she got so emotional involved in believing that the thirteen years was too excessive that she lost what about a lesser deal or something he there's some conversation between the two of them and she responds well you know we need to wait until we get closer to trial right and she did and that's how we get closer to trial before we can engage in any kind of meaningful discussions with th think that her advice was reasonable and tactical because based on what she didn't get according to testimony at the at the evidence or here and she didn't give him any advice at the time the trial now but her advice i think remain the same from from the prior advice that she gave him so she didn't really i think