upset about losing your quarterback a little bit you know but a national championship parents you know i'll take that you're on or good morning at least for a few more minutes anyway my name is dalton patterson and i'm a  at this point in time that the prosecution the government actually in their response never said that there was not a plea offer they just indicated the fact that mr martin had not produced a tangible copy  facts in the case of the case he would have accepted a plea but it was not due to effective assistance of counsel i have trouble understanding how he could be actually innocent and want to plead guilty to thirty years if that was even offered certainly not in terms of whether or not he was in terms of his claim of innocence i disagree and i goes back to whether he was properly guided during the pre counsel mr martin himself and the government what we would learn is what actually occurred during the pretrial conversations was there a plea offered how likely would it be that the government offers a plea in this particular statement would be enough to require a hearing share with your own of this case differs from gallup fast as particularly with regard to the procedure probably yes it is similar in the fact that there was not that offended that produce a tangible copy attorney removed because he was in fact encouraging him to accept a plea and this is not the case here right but well i've got to tell you i'd i read that opinion as having alternative holdings that is saying simply  the one of the reasons the petition was rejected was that there was no evidence that the government offered petitioner a deal and we similarly here have no evidence that the petitioner off was was offered a deal other than this completely i mean we don't know anything about the terms was he going to have to cooperate it was just going to be a binding plea ordinarily we expect specific evidence to before we go to that trouble in reopening a case right sure but however this court in recent years has expressed a willingness to move away from the objective evidence standard  is a different issue you're talking about the turow issue s about objective evidence as to whether the defendant would in fact have accepted the plea that was offered right sir and i've i've shared some of that skepticism about that objective evidence requirement but i don't see that as presented here where we don't even have evidence that an offer was made certainly your honor but again i would repeat the fact that remember more than what he said in his petition in terms of i'm sorry i'm here to question who made him an offer when what words terms binding advisory cooperate or not cooperate the other material terms of a plea agreement was it in writing certainly honor but as again this court has held in recent cases such as the district c this court has indicated a willingness to move away from a requirement of an objective evidence standard because there really is no requirement under strickland for that particular issue you understand what the courts are reluctant to do  up at the trial level i don't believe so now ok well i've got maybe i'm missing so they're all i've got in his petition is a reference to the government evidentiary hearing making no mention of an objective evidence requirement and taking into account the disparity of sentence as an indication of prejudice or for these reasons your honor we ask that this court  it stopped the hold music right and sat around it came along and we gets right of to put it in writing the i just note your honor the prosecutors who are involved in this case have all left offer i am unable to say that but of course mr martin it was his burden to come forward i understand tell factual alleghany know that it was not office have a practice of always offering a reduced sentence recommendation you know every defendant know certainly a mr martin was the lead defendant in a very serious case he had been a convicted murderer there were plenty of reasons not to offer plea agreement to reduce sentence whether or not one was issued an an offer was made or not i honestly don't know mr martin didn't kari's burton didn't give the district court enough evidence or enough reason to think that an evidentiary hearing would be fruitful and today has admitted that one of the purposes of the evidence you're hearing would be to find out if a plea had been offer given by his lawyer the district court is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to proceed on this big on these vacant clues re allegations about a plea offer particularly in a case where is your honor noted mr martin gives every indication in his twenty two fifty five petition that he thought he was innocent and that he thought his defense attorney that the failures of his defense attorneys went to the investigation and defense at trial not to whether or not he had interfered with the plea but whether or not he in fact had provided enough of a vigorous defense to prove to prove mr martin's your honour's the district court the government's attorney takes the position that he honestly does not know if a please this is that the very purpose of why we have a district court have an evidentiary hearing to find out the truth of the matter what actually happened further and he was granted a mistrial is going to a certificate of a bit of appeal billy which only be granted when there's been a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right now the government attorney argues that the issue here is not to do with any conclusory statements in fact it was the very reason why the district court granted a certificate of appeal ability to resolve the spirit issue does this statement says conclusory statements concerning lawyers certainly and most of these pleas are done during you know oral verbal communication that we can get from witness statements into the credibility is what actually did happen was a plea even discussed let alone offered the likelihood of a similar circumstance would have