was clearly an error when it found that that conflict was not sufficiently severe to prevent effective assistance of counsel the using the u s b more criteria for review this conflict was about intense personal dislike between the client and his counsel to the point where counsel no longer believed that he could even go so far as to human eyes his client in front of the jury that he doubted that he could provide counsel with the client with a fair trial and that he had developed for the first time in twenty five years as a criminal defense attorney and intense dislike for the client the conflict had transformed between the time of the marston hearing in july of one thousand nine hundred eight when counsel was rather confident that he could overcome the obstacles that he felt that mr lamell was putting in his way but by the time we reached october counsel had determined that he could no longer offer a fair trial and therefore he moved to withdraw and this was emphasized this was the first time in the long career he ever felt that it things had reached a point he no longer was able to discuss defenses whatsoever with his client everything turned into anger and hostility and under that circumstance we have what plumlee describes as a case where the communication is so limited and so dysfunctional that even a very competent counsel can't give representation it's going to provide the client with what he is entitled to under the sixth amendment then the trial court unlike what it did  in july in the marston hearing failed to give a meaningful inquiry into the nature of the conflict back in july there was a lot of room questioning about the details of what the problem was here we see a situation where ultimately the court concluded with a remark that was really rather disparaging to this attorney that well nobody ever told you when you started your career as a martyr that it was going to be easy that wasn't the problem that mr speaker a man was dealing with a situation where he and his client in part because of threats from the client and anger from the client just no longer were speaking they had according to what mr speaker meant said they would barely begin to talk and it would degenerate into non communication with the lawyer in a situation like that whatever the ultimate conclusion is about the merits is in a very difficult position indeed  but then indeed when asked to withdraw it but without describing the details but when i've been in that position i've never had a situation where it was basically a shouting match between the client and me this is this was something that pointed out back at the time of the marston hearing already that he was having difficulties with mr speaker mean in terms of things that probably weren't mr speaker mr ball but the mail was perceiving a lack of eye contact the lack of visit some of these were accurate it did appear that that mr speaker may have not visited him much but there certainly were personality issues but from there it's a lead it's a stretch to say that lamell was intentionally trying to disrupt the representation lamell had had counsel previously before speaker men came in for one in which there didn't seem to be that level of problem in the public defender's office and mr speaker meant candidly thought that there might be some mental issues now the competency evaluation was held and they didn't find that mel was incompetent and simply unable to provide counsel but this wasn't there's no indication in this case that the mill was trying to gain some advantage in delay there was time until trial counsel could have been appointed and this was such seem to be such an intense clash perhaps personality driven but it was reciprocal it wasn't just a male saying to mr speaker man i can't stand you or far worse i'm sure you know the communication was far worse but speaker minturn felt that so it was so mutual to me this notion when you tell the trial court that you can't even human eyes your client you're saying that there's something very very deep that's not related to a question of there's this flavor are flowing underneath in the state court opinions that lamell was asking speaker men to commit perjury speaker minister that's a particularly difficult what the nature of the problem was in terms of if there were questions to ask about the nature of the dislike what were the threats about none of that occurred the judge just lectured mr speaker meant that he could  free counsel and you have a right to have an effective advocate but the problems in this case did not come from anything that mr speaker meant dead the limits there is the limitation this is a sort of a case as i see it that you have you have no reason for the client to legitimately distrust the attorney no reason for the client not to cooperate not to participate believe that they can they can actually state your honor i move to withdraw because now i want to take the stand and commit perjury now i think that they have to i don't think that they can outright say that i think is mr laurenson the so they can suggest it and i think that it was there was an indication here that i mean it's the judge that picked up because what they're talking about in this code is the evidence you know the the constitutional rights that the defendant wants to assert and you know he has a right to make to do that and the judge in fact says sometimes you're in that position where your client wants to do these things and you know you can't ethically do that  and counsel again picks up and says you know yeah we're having this personality conflict but we're fighting about the kind of case to put on in that situation is and let's assume denies the motion he'll be able to talk him out of it later that no the new defense lawyer wouldn't be able to talk the client out of doing that sort of thing was the judge doing in a situation well i think  judge is trying to do is to not you know it's to both signal and sort of contain the box and say you guys have to work this out because i mean you don't get to just keep trying to find a lawyer that will allow you to go commit out and we were sort of speculating we think we know what happened or we might think you know what happened but we don't because we didn't that there was an evidentiary hearing in the federal he views i mean wouldn't wouldn't that solve the problem in terms of spelling out exactly what the conflict was well i think that i mean our position throughout these proceedings was that you know is that appreciate that there were there was a motion to withdraw the argued on this record so our position is that because this is an a d p a case right he did not act would do diligence and that's that was basically the re i mean that was the reason that the magistrate determine that he wasn't entitled to an matters i mean i suppose that you could get more and more information but i think that it presumes that there's anything here i mean everything that's in this record whether it's personal dislike that's not enough whether it's but we don't would have a little better idea about whether it's just a personality conflict or some something deeper but i think that you've got to take it to the next step which is that just suppose that it that it was as it seems to be indicated it that there was some element of not be entitle to them but it would make our task a little easier when i can appreciate that if this was a case you know like shell where the motions lost in the shuffle or the judge is just disregards and you know doesn't doesn't conduct any kind of hearing doesn't take them seriously but you know contrary to mr women since the suggestion when you read this record the court is saying give me some specifics tell me help me you know you're giving me some generalities i need to hear more and you're for need to tell me i mean i where the majority in plumlee determine that there was objective evidence justifying the defendant's refusal to cooperate you had your defense counsel going in becoming a da in the middle of your case and not telling you the mean this was not a complicated criminal case the defendant robs a seven eleven store the victim knows him as a former customer tells him come on is this worth murder he shoots him in a leg he's found fifty six yards away with witnesses seeing him head over there with the gun in the outfit and with the crumpled up money that he took i mean when he loses the suppression motion when he lose the motions to strike it strikes it's a to just be a lousy client and get a new lawyer and i think that's what you have here and at the end i'm used to becoming gets him a thirty thirty year sentence to determine a term that's lengthy but it's not a life term so i just i don't see even if you the entry of plea date was nov thirteenth of one thousand nine hundred eight so about five to six weeks after the hearing the evidence you're hearing would indeed have fleshed out the issues i believe that you're describing that we had we had being a good case mr speaker and didn't see it that way mr speaker and was working on the case in order to provide a defense conflicts arose there and it's it's it's it is indeed very hard to to wrap one's hands around the nature of the conflict but speaker meant implied that if you read between the lines and do see a desire back in january in july on the part of the client to give perjured testimony by the time we're getting around to october speaker miss talking about a personality the personality conflict on his and it is going to impede him from the fact of representation and that's the plumlee problem the fact that once the conflict has become so acute that effective representation is lost no longer possible prejudice is presumed and lamell would have been from our perspective downright insane to have gone forward in a trial when counsel says he doesn't think you can put on a fair trial let alone human isom now the the question had this been only lamell this problem i don't think we would be here today the thing the the issue is speaker mmon saw that there was a problem that was going to impede him from giving sixth amendment proper representation and the judge should have taken that more seriously and at the very least going into deeper inquiry and lastly granted the motion ok thank you thank you both for your argument very well the case just argued will be submitted for decision will now proceed to the next case on the argument calendar which is create greve versus you santa health services if counselor president that come forward please