move for the file cases morning friends first bro defense to the other even trial count conceded as much in the opening statement the trial that the state's case was ninety nine point nine percent true and that the and its version of the serious mental disorder and was of unsound mind and an able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct this was due to withdrawal of alcohol causing the  in this case is a classic what they call in indiana a fixed and settled insanity based on the withdrawal of alcohol it is a serious mental disorder and it's not just based on mere consumption of alcohol that the muslim based his opinion not only on the interview of of the defendant but substantial contemporaneous information that was in the record and i think that's one of the critical points in this case that if first he considered them the medical report the one reports from the washington county hospital i think if i  could interrupt for a minute at trial counsel it's undisputed did consult with an expert on the issue of insanity and in fact filed an insanity intent to advance an insanity defense in the case and withdrew it because the expert  wouldn't support it well so i don't know how the state court's decision rejecting this claim can be unreasonable based on the failure of an expert to support the defense just because another expert can be found later who supports that isn't ineffective assistance of counsel what our position here is of this and just dr kuhn's opinion that is what you're talking about  hadn't read zammit found him to be suffering from the condition of the alcohol withdrawal from the d t s he found to be psychotic but his opinion was inconclusive and i think this is the critical point the whole case shooting that he was unable to render a specific opinion if he didn't he was ultimately listening i mean it's hard to put i mean the d t s i mean he was he was giving multiple stories right but the question is what would another examination ha produced well and another expert to look at the data and to look at it at this record and determine that he was insane and what if that was inconclusive as well you know that's a real good question because i thought about that question maybe after that then the two inclusive means that nobody can reach an opinion but one has done that got the most for the record let's take court discredited his opinion as think based on  selective and incomplete information i don't i don't think it was all that i selected i mean that's one of the points i don't write a lot of question is whether that that was at least a reasonable way to look at the evidence you have you have to demonstrate that that's an unreasonable the way to deal with dr my spams report absolutely and i think that it is unreasonable because look of the medical records that already exist you consider the washington county medical records  he talked to one of the officers last brooks who who indicated that he was only dressed as a shirt and appeared to be in an underwear and appeared to be disoriented on that it was selective because he didn't consider two other officers but those two other offices or one of them is of mike dixon who who actually  i believe knew what i knew the knew that the founded and similar and and reached the conclusion when he saw him on the scene that he p f somewhat disoriented his speech to be somewhat slurred compared to the other times that he had known him was somewhat distorted in the times and chronologically time and things of that nature was somewhat confused so i'm i mean and also the reality of this particular truck the trial itself presenting an insanity defense and perhaps utilizing expert witness testimony and seeking a jury instruction formally presenting it to the jury where now before us your position i think is taking a slightly different tac but isn't the timing of the child council's decision to withdraw the insanity defense and not call the expert witness and suggest that it was a matter of strategy because it came at the heels of the government indicating that they were going to then have their independent witness examine the defendant and then be able to be in a position possibly to rebut any of this formal insanity defense and so therefore the trial attorney could preserve this argument and make it as he then have to point to other experts and then he would that of lee get a second opinion i mean without getting in opinion that the defendant was insane without without reason that defense he had no defense or investigated a defense of insanity in he actually hired a witness outside the formal procedure for that so he could get expert opinion that wouldn't be available to the state unless he used it after consulting with that expert he withdrew any formal defense of insanity because i think reasonably can be seen as he didn't want to have the defendant examined by two independent experts he wanted to still be able to argue that he was hallucinating something was going on and so he didn't form the mens rea of the knowing or intentional part of the murder so he was able to argue that without having any expert testimony saying to the contrary and and looking at the deposition of dr kuhn's dr kuhn's opined that there was evidence from the record that the defendant knew right from wrong and so that was why he couldn't come to a conclusion that th defendant didn't know right from wrong at the time he committed the offense so in light of that then counsel and in the face of the state asking to examine the defendant with its own witness and also in the face of the state motion to exclude dr coombs unless the defendant went through the insanity defense procedure of appointing to court appointed doctors defense the defense counsel made a choice to go forward without the insanity defense and dr mosque bombs besides being not credited gives no sheds no shade on that decision because dr mosque on based his decision on the defendant story that he gives for the first time five years after the event which is that he shot in the dark the fent had never given the story before to anyone and in fact dr coontz the story he gave to dr kuhn's was that he did not shoot zach and they did not see the shooting happen so dr moscow has opinions based on evidence that the defendant had never provided to anyone before and was provided without looking at extra evidence that suggested dr moss kwame's opinion was not credible one being dr moscow on puts a lot of emphasis on the fact there was no cover up but we know from other evidence in the record that the defendant put the extra rifle the twenty two caliber rifle under the victim after he was shot and then went and drove up and down his road so that neighbors would hear traffic coming from his house to things that he did to try to present evidence in full and that would support his first story to the police so there was evidence of a cover up and dr muslim uses that because he didn't look at the the detective's opinion or the texas reports that talked about that evidence when he renders opinion it was reasonable for the state courts not to credit dr moslem's testimony but even without that it was reasonable for the courts to look at what counsel actually did at the trial how we litigated it and come to the conclusion it was a reasonable strategic decision to litigate it the statements that he is he's making is that he's confused and that's dr kuhn's is the deposition so i think i believe our position is throughout is that he should have got another opinion or least had not withdrawn the motion so that he could