councils significant from professional conduct for the jury now strictly washington has violated when defense counsel effectiveness causes a breakdown in the adversarial process in jose's multiple breakdowns and the breakdown started before trial when defense counsel failed to appreciate the that the discovery showed that a codefendant tested positive for gunshot residue this was s error that the trial court when he learned of it and learned the defense counsel not only could not but where a positive test but had failed to bring in witnesses to establish the chair of custody for this evidence that he removed counsel from bac bargain the state argued that the defense counsel is just chasing its own theory of the case are you saying that if the defense counsel had known about the co defendants just start testing positive that the beginning part of th anything but that another individual through the gun out the window and accidentally discharge and this testimony you're talking about fleet week had predicted what the defense says happened in this case but again it could have produced this highly prejudicial and irrelevant gave evidence to the testimony of two key witnesses and we know why they did this we know from the post trial motion and so the hearing where we counsel said he tie jose all the people the car with a claim were out that night looking for trouble which i think was very persuasive to the jury is the people of the lead can we rewind just back to the very beginning this is the judge and experienced judge who when he realized that mr adams lead counsel was going to try to represent all four defendants and then that might cause a problem with celebrity and and had a dialogue with the defendant and say you know what are you going to do about this in the defendant went back and talked to mr adams and came back and said no he's going to in the hearing and the motion for the new trial that he didn't know mr adams had limited experience in criminal trials were that his colleagues had had no trial experience i don't know if the defendant even knew that we don't know if the church is very experienced and he's seen a lot of attorneys come and go he's been in a lot of criminal defense prosecution cases he knows what's going on and he did not grant the motion for a new trial because he thought morning again your honors and your honors there's no prejudice in this case this is a case where we have to evaluate and police officer victim eyewitnesses who identify defend and reach his hand out of a fleeing viet cong and his profile and then his face with a larger than normal gun and aim and shoot it at them this is a scene was transaction if you will we have these officers who are following this lean vs call this vehicle because it had just hit a car in the intersection no dish him nobody him yes your honor there is not they do they follow the testimony is that they follow this vehicle without interruption and they are able to witness defend employed from the front passenger seat and identify him right there on the scene as the person that just said shot it down and the car was making a sharp left turn a nd or two it could be possible there's no testimony to indicate that there's just testimony that they were in how to pursue they did radio dispatch so that they could share really there's a dangerous vehicle on the roads here and then we have two other officers responding they're able to had off defendants they didn't see the left turn they were already on the morning correct yes so this is the s u v presumably has windows in the front seat in the back seat on the passenger side yes i would say the testimony really did show that they had it was a swift into action and they had a clear view and they were able even despite the turn to keep their their eyes on this flame vehicle and as i stated it was headed off by two other officers so this really was a swift into action scene was there is no testimony that they sat any sort of that had g s r on his hands and there is not a whole lot of testimony about anybody saw him do anything it just is a curiosity in this case certainly and i understand that curiosity i think it's important in this case to really focus on the prejudice pronk as this court is well aware of this type of case an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be disposed of by going directly to that prejudice prong and here to find it cannot show padgett this which would really amount to showing abit in showing that there's a reasonable probability that that throughout these forever alleged errors the outcome of his case would have been different and outcome here is it includes t guilty verdicts for the attack murder of a police officer and really where we have the recent probability amounts to a pot abilities sufficient enough to undermine the confidence in the outcome and none of defendants arguments compromise or show any sort of undermining of the confidence in those guilty verdicts and it does you have a question ok so the state's job is to get to justice not just to convict somebody absolutely where the bullets in the pocket that the defendant had them has a head on where they are protested to see if they actually could fit in the gun  so there was no nine millimeter bullets i know they are tracked and they were there was evidence that was destroyed and they did and they were destroyed they were destroyed in the process of enjoyed so full of bullets was honor his hands were tested i'm not sure that his brother was tested so in this was hours later after the incident anyway the testimony did show that the globe was in inventory the police were controlling so the glove was washed the glove was rubbed against anything but if there was just sir if there were just on the glove while the police had it under their control they were going to do anything to remove that yes or sure i'm just curious about your state you're you're telling me the glove was not tested i couldn't find it in the record i just want to confirm that it's my understanding that it wasn't for no tests we don't know if this was cracked didn't fit in there i think we know there were nine millimeter but it was apparently some specific make and model of a gun profile they sized they saw and lean out with this gun and shoot at them if i could address the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel just one by one i'd like to point out where there each of wrong place wrong time i'm in this car with two of my brothers and my body co founder will helio melee but i didn't shoot the gun in fact it was real helio man who did it and she is a real passenger she testified on behalf of defendant seating defendant had nothing to do with the guy it was me it was a communal crime we were in the con but it was only so it's ue is no nothing in the rocker to show that he was in fact removed from the trial all we have is the motion for a new trial is defense counsel stating that that's what occurred but i want to point out that during the state's case in chief defense countered by dansko she did the cause examination of officer d'leo and she took the cause examination of off surveiled as to she certainly wasn't for interview with defendant before he testified that she worked at the files so aside from the fact that there's really no evidence that different counsel was removed in fact i would say that the record actually refutes that by the fact  again it was bought out by this court that defense counsel adams very much still sort of his had when he made some sort of objection during the closing argument the state's closing argument  called off the case if you were asked to withdraw from the case it's clear that he remained he remained down and that he sat with setting the landscape for how defendant was just sort of immersed in this bad situation but really it had nothing to do with him it would have affected he may have been a gang member it was all real h i'm sure of that and i believe it was just a shots fired and then there was a license plate there was no description of the shooter nothing that went to the heart of this is the person who shot at us we had a vehicle that was for being a shooting what this was very much necessary to share with fellow officers for the safety of our city if you will and really stop this this criminal spree that they were on sort of dispatches certainly do not qualify i qualify as hearsay when defining is testifying on his own behalf and and sharing this i think lastly defendants that overall allegation of unprofessional conduct with regards to defense counsel's reign adams and christine about gansa i think the trial court judge freud in the post trial ruling at the motion for new trial i think that he really emphasized that there was no prejudice here and certainly admitted that he had to mohnish and chastise defense counsels or cracked down but at the end of the day an illustrating argument we're certainly cured and i think that the jury was certainly admonished again and that arguments were not evidence and so they were aware of that i think with regards to your defense counsel another defense counsel would sort of shy away at those sort of antics but as a squad knows the strategy of one defense counsel is really virtually unchallengable i'm so that's really a high threshold here i do we're just court to focus on the prejudice factor but just to point out with the st on here as a very important aside i think many of the complaints here kru arguably the strategy and it may not have been perfect strategy or strategy that one would employ that we would employ it really did not the level of being credible eyewitness victims who immediately identify defendant as he was a roof from that kind they identified him on a critically at trial and there was simply no prejudice that defendant enjoyed it as a result of his defense counsel's if there are no further questions the state would just rely on the rest of its arguments and brief thank you very much