that about the importance of the brightening in the course of brain damage for a long time look at the red flag for brain damage in this case we have neurological insults including a loss of oxygen or birth markedly for counsel may not simply hire an expert and then abandon all further responsibility so it's not just hiring someone is how they use them in this case the proof is in the pudding if you look at dr does testimony jurors to be experts jurors don't have to doubt the red flag for brain damage they should be expected to know the red flags for for brain damage but trial counsel that have to know these things under the standard his obvious that he thought he would be shooting people telling his costars don't come in and have a shooting load i mean this this is not an impulsive because the arkansas license plates that they thought were out of place looked suspicious right now they had nothing to do with his level of intoxication and you know i watched his video and i i can't say that  d that there is evidence that trial counsel was away from the incident while he was incarcerated where mr griffin passed out and was aware of the medical records related to facts of the case and whether that fifty fact really has anything to do with explaining why the defendant did what the defendant did here as in littlejohn you have a diagnosis of a very supreme court's thoughts about the physical alteration of the brain structure of the brain damage in the end but this brain damage evidence does that it helps explain so many things that explains in a general way mr grissom wh trajectory of his his downward spiral and moves on the talk about the life of deviance and this kind of general explanatory sense but also supporting the crime here is extremely poor reasoning and huge amount of alcohol together and seeing every step of the way with crime and help explain what happened how we got to this point in this life and how the crime happened to speak to your question about watching a this issue can you help me i want to make sure that i understand as a catalogue of all of your arguments whether deficiency progress the president's problem on this organic brain injury my understanding of your two arguments  on the royal recent decision we've just because it's a brain the fact doesn't fucking prejudice and you have to look specifically at the condition say we're not talking about organic brain injury we're talking about someone who had the same amp and has two parents with that are addicted to drugs and spent their lives in s something better and different and that's what you do you want to talk about the other issues well i guess i might really quick because of rush short on  evidence about his mental state they knew all of the indian railways the court said was that the red flags were presented to the jury had not they were very well the jury knew about the lack of oxygen the berthing was not the speech difficulties all the head injuries guilty plea and the supreme court has distinguished between confessions counsel and confessions of the stand and and you also have once the court gave the voluntary intoxication instruction it's clear that defense counsel pivoted and argued very clearly to the jury that they could find that he couldn't form specific intent because he was drawn i mean under no circumstances isn't the because the judge also instructed the jury in the alternative on felony murder and for felony murder of course you don't need an intent to kill you need an intent to commit an underlying have four minutes and forty four seconds here one of the things that i needed to point out that i gave about the two kinds of brain damage we believe