peacefully go and may have my property back. that is not a crime. but if you go in there with guns and you demand your property back with two people who are armed and five people around you i got to think it s problematic. i m not suggesting, he is very competent lawyer. no lawyer would say that. you can criticize his attorney, but you are not going tell me, go in there with guns. it s no problem. he is at least in the media a bid of a hotdog i might say. he is widely respected lawyer. he is competent. absolutely. the supreme court standard for competency is so low. wasn t there a texas case where the defense attorney in a capital case was drunk and asleep and yet he was competent lawyer. what the court said in that
case it wasn t an important part in the criminal proceeding. gregg: if your lawyer tells you in advance that if you confronted two memorabilia experts that it s legally permissible doesn t it create a conflict of interest? i don t think so. i don t think so in this case. not under those circumstances. gregg: but involved in the process of a criminal act. i don t know if he was. he says he wasn t. the other thing you have to go back, it s been ten years, and this is just surfacing. appellate lawyers element to have claim that the trial lawyer was ineffective. if they don t raise it . gregg: joey, simpson saying, hey the d.a. apparently offered me a plea deal of two to five