may please the court counsel my name is christopher mccord from the office of the state appellate defender and i represent jeffrey seale this case arises from a very unusual set of circumstances and while these facts of certainly water real question didn't have to do with the elements of the crime instead it was involved in whether or not mr seale was sane at the time of the fence however defense counsel did not raise the insanity defense at trial and it is then evidence really was that he was acting strangely he was under stress on he maybe wasn't thinking the way he had before but how does the adequate with the insan need to show is a reasonable probability that this defense would have been successful but is trial judge heard since it isn't a trial it's a trial by judges supposed to a jury trial in this case he heard can paste in there he seemed to be under stress but the court also heard bed he had gone through a rather contested divorce where she will be the mother of these children was thought to be mentally ill and so he received he was the custody of parent of three children shouldn't the court taken it into account as well in terms of this strange behavior well first of all i believe much of the evidence that you just discuss of the defense a trial yes and that comes from all the evidence that was in the present report all the evidence that was available to trial counsel at the time of trial that he did not present and we waived  secret material any thought there was some type of wiretap or eavesdropping device on his phone so her statements give us a snapshot of the defense mental state at the time of a bad fence and it to the defendant's consistent statement denying that he entered that was his and everybody pretty much consistent through all the valuations correct and yes he went over there to get his son believe never actually  also says that it's he was possibly insane possibly insane or delusional and i can't remember the exact term but at the time of this event and i didn't we're not this is not a sufficiency of the evidence challenge all that's needed is a reasonable probability of a different outcome and perhaps there's some facts in favor of the state perhaps there's certain facts in favor of that that mr seale was insane at the time of the fans and that's for the trier of fact to weigh and that's that's what we're asking is that this case go back for a new trial so that the trier of fact can hear the relevant evidence and decide what the real issue that's at the heart of this case because ultimately when you look at the facts in this case it's you know very bizarre by any account only one explanation can account for the defendant's actions here and that's that he was insane at the time of th fictitious name as opposed to door goes on to i mean you have to go you go all the other just in terms of whether or not the defense would sanity would be a good reason the likelihood of success that when you're looking at the decisions of counsel he tried to get an opinion he came up sure the judge said on the record i thought we were going to have an expert opinion he said well we didn't we didn't get it but they tried to come up with a police grievance should we should we look at the look at the counsel's overall performance or just for his claim to be found not guilty because he did not intend to commit selling when he entered the house that's not a legal basis for an acquittal on home invasion the only way that that is relevant is if the defendant was invited the home which by every count he was not so the looking at looking at his overall performance looking at his trial strategy it was based on a misapprehension of the law and it was not a strategic decision  to his client apparently chose to testify and that would be is decision to make yes and he got on the stand and her sister and i never will be in that house how is it how is he going to never went in there well it's both settled in the law that you can present a reasonable doubt defense and singing offense at the same time but if you look at what counsel did she didn't choose to adopt his  and we have these facts here that it's simply it was not reasonable to try to argue or to adopt his client's testimony because it was contradicted by the rest of the evidence that was presented a what is clients telling him his client's insistence on taking the stand and also what he's been able to muster throughout what was it four years of pretrial with occasion where he's speaking to the doctor  absence of counsel but that's that's not it is struggling so we're looking at this decision we're looking at his action here and what did he do a trial what defense to be presented trauma and given i mean i keep going back to that but given the unique bizarre facts here a challenge but all the looking for is a reasonable probability so what what do we have we've got the family members and the friends that noticed this marker havior in his marching his behavior then we have  the very bizarre facts of this offense itself he's where it is metal plate under sure he goes over to a house that the people who he has never know he attacks in this  and looking at the facts and this is not to the normal home invasion i mean obviously home invasions are off to begin with but this is just a period unique very bizarre case and the one issue here the one issue that isn't a viable reason the defense reasonable doubt argument made here there are certain baas not only did the defended testify that he you know that the door was closing that he thought his son was in there and he thought he had been invited  he has testified that he felt and basically as the door was being close and a lot of his attorney did not go further and argue that he didn't make entry he did certainly argue that there was not of the law of this case i think it looking at his statements throughout he was saying two things not that the defendant did did not go in there with an underlying intent to commit a felony in other word something like burglary i don't think that was his argument his argument was that he was mistaken that he arrived at the door that the evidence in fact showed that she got a phone call that she in answer to the after he had dropped off his son he went to the fact you know he had some type or criminal attempt to actually go through the door in the first place not so much that he thought that this is a you know the same this burglary also he didn't make what i would consider to be to actually not supported argument which is determine that this was an intentional act on his car in coming here with you know perhaps the metal plate with to do so you know some sort of term no doubt that the mental illness and insanity was in front of the judge he did you know standing to indicate that in fact he was considering whether there was some type of you know a mental illness that in paris judgment or that there was something to show that he didn't understand the criminality of during the pre well it does seem to be bizarre but bizarre does not actually mean mentally ill such that his judgment was impaired and certainly council tried and tried through all this not only the fitness evaluations and one additional one order by the court but that all through two thousand and twelve which is about certainly there is something here and off that he couldn't raise and you know the insanity defense and i differ on your ass in there i believe that he did raise that he didn't do maybe the best job possible but we're looking at was there prejudice acquaintance that officer you know suicide off well first of all the conduct certainly does not go along with that type of you know does not show that he was delusional that way at the time because there was no mention of any of that he was going to get his son h additional information the committee information which was sort of cumulative and which didn't really necessarily go to what he was thinking at the time certainly doesn't reflect his behavior at the time oh let me get it to mention he looked through all that and said i don't see any reason here that that explains his behavior so even at that point the judge did not take this to signal that the time of the offense that he was either impaired by a mental illness or that he was cr and in person and i think this is important he's not ignoring the information but he's just turn it that bad formation does not reflect on the defendant's mental state at the time of crime and therefore assistance of counsel he can't shoot there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different the state argues it looks like in closing argument they even concede that guilty but mentally ill could could be justified then they say but he didn't hear voices or see things that didn't appear to be there now is is that a standard to find someone insane or are they just static delusions and of course you know if he's having episodic delusions which it's not clear because of his head injuries and you know the deaths from you know it's a mental illness that predated his trauma but if he's having that then of course you have to indicate otherwise so i think what the ac was trying to say at their point it's just you know if there's some type of delusions you know we don't we don't see that it's pertinent here but no that's not exactly  twenty sixth was this divorce proceeding concluded i think it was quite sometime i believe that was several years like prior to prior to an incident a couple years before that they were out of the lane apparently  think the ongoing custody battle continued initially the insanity defense was not presented in this case there was no argument their defense counsel did not ask for not guilty by reason of insanity the court did not want and most poignantly i think we have his argument counsel's argument at sensing hearing when he said quote well the defense may not have done any decent job of demonstrating to the court we still believe that mr silver did not appreciate the crimin this crime themselves and i don't i don't know if there was any final report from dr chantry there's no we just know that yet but it doesn't seem that any report was made because the court ordered that all of the evaluations be included in the p s i i and they were in the meantime another one that was made after his conviction but there is no one