was a mental defense whether he was able to form specific intent in the course of this homicide this is perhaps the most extreme case i've seen of evidence supporting effective testimony given some years after the event the difficulty as my experience as a defense counsel when i did a lot of this is that people find themselves in situations in which they find it necessary to explain whether they have an explanation or not difficulty here is that everything that the court's talking about is almost completely determined from the defendant's testimony and in fact every defense counsel if my client indicated this is what and probably may not even of remembered what he testified to and on top of that may have had a substantial a defense on the subject of an event then it is also my requirement to not only put together the medical evidence in this case we have the evidence from individuals who indicate that there was substantial problems and on top of that i think we even have some evidence of your difficulty is the court below decided all this from the record not from the allegations maybe starkest and here even in the record we have to medications this very strange activity on the part of the defendant puking and screaming and all that sort of thing so the difficult years we really had to separate defenses both of which trial counsel had a responsibility to present is we didn't give them the opportunity there were things they needed to hear they needed to hear this long history of intoxication they needed to hear what impact that would have on the a person's ability to form an intent they needed to hear the impact that that would have on what this person might be doing quite aside from what he took months to testify to it is natural that anybody wants to testify some story that's going to exonerate them completely as unbelievable as it might mean here we have t have counsel themselves that indicated the lack of this was not build any tactical reason we have the testimony of a medical expert who indicated the substantial possibility that this would hope that this would have changed the outcome and then we have the investigator we have four separate individuals testifying as to things that should have been done and are although i agree with the court's hesitance that it is difficult for a jury to hear two totally inconsistent approaches one of the defendants as i remember everything but nonetheless it should happen it didn't happen here and i was what i'm saying is we didn't have a fair result here the jury with the jury didn't hear not only in the her half of the evidence didn't hear that probably the most important and only potential defense in th palmer voluntary intoxication was relevant to second degree murder only to the extent that it would reduce his mental capacity and that mental capacity could have been found two separate ways either he had a specific confessed kill or he acted consciously conscious disregard for life safety under either version mr gutierrez testimony squarely comports with both of those mental states and an intoxication offense would be inconsistent with what he sa where there is nearly complete absence of things you would might expect to see for someone who was intoxicated things like i blacked out things i can't remember things like i was so drunk i don't know what i was doing that day mr who's here it was very clear tire credibility in front of the jury doing an intoxication without a matter again i think there's much more potential in terms of a jury kind of fighting and inconsistent defense we do that all the time we allow the defendant testify in this case the jury believed he was lying and we're picking and