but he says some significant things in that filing one of which is you know i'm going to quote here from a one fifty united ace one sixty that conflict of interest and then he says quote he would not consent to this type of representation as such would would be against his wishes thus mr gonzales did not pursue the commonwealth  exactly why mutually exclusive you can't have a diminished capacity defense and have a client who's denying it but if there was another potential defense on the table that he was reaching for it it was little rock even if it wasn't diminished sounded like a look from the record like he was about to defend himself by saying we came in here with the understanding that we were going diminished capacity if i did if i could pass the cost problem which i hope i thought experiment here if the court had written to mr gonzales and said your only remedy to look at any of this now is to get to federal court would that constitute an impediment  mean what it would be an impediment to his filing and exhausting the state court remedies in other words if this little had not come from the public the court how about if you came from the prosecutor's office and the prosecutor wrote him and said don't file here go to sue go to federal court that's what you need to do again you are you have state action i will leave ok here you've got a public defender sta actor ray of sorts who's got a conflict of interest and who writes to this gentleman and tells him something which is flatly wrong completely wrong shouldn't that shouldn't that causes some concern about whether about causes that maybe you know if you're getting lead out of the fact that out of this that it's his former way or and maybe they're supposed to be some residual responsibilities why why is that so different that we would say cause if it's coming from the court because of it's coming from the to mislead that even suggesting that that's not in my question i understand that but i don't believe a defense counsel would intentionally mislead someone he represented it in trial to establish cause just he may give it a miss advice but i don't think it was done to the extent that it's status cos but but hang with me here why why is it different why would we say it's cause sufficient to excuse a failure to the sauce if it comes astride the cause requirement of strickland because he is you know his gladiator is his movie or his has basically prevented him from doing what he needs to do which is exhaust is it's going to be adversarial i do so yes because what we have here is obviously not somebody who is in his scale per se not someone who is adversarial but someone who's really not ascribe any role with them officially who these no longer is his lawyer so is your point that anyone who falls into that category would be an external factor the one respect you might argue it's worse than abandon it it's it's actively working against the guy's interests by giving him erroneous advice if it's if it's enough of an impediment for your lawyers to stop a former client then some show off the street was offended that we could he did not want the public defender's office to present him or his attorney so now what he was says advice from the attorney then he's you're you're the guy who shot your girlfriend so far i haven't heard any evidence of any new witnesses new d n a analysis i believe in belo there was a witness a second floor who said this defend it wasn't at the scene isn't it is that how about how about where it's so bad that the prosecutors say the court basically look we just feel compelled to say we had nothing to do with that and we just want you and any appellate court looking at it you know we that was an os we didn't just do this thing where he said he's quite good now i've paraphrased loosely but that's in the record with with the prosecutor saying that on the record does that imply prejudice  in the court could a colloquy defend that and that would have handled it much better than where we are today but that did not happen is that is the question of prejudice the same question in this context of cause of prejudice as it establishing prejudice on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is that the same standard that we're trying to look at i did a different i don't police i think the standard be much higher at this point that he's going back to you have to status actual innocen area of the law we have a record that indicates some confusion about whether things were sent or not sent and received by the court