council put on didn't support the intoxication defense because again just remarkable one of the most the bartender comes to testify the strongest current and he comes in and tells the court i'm worried about liability for certain so much booze thank you thank you is david believe assistant district attorney in the philadelphia district attorney's office representing the commonwealth of pennsylvania in this process he'll judge sheriff following up on the letter that i sent to the court last week  why i like his advice when you're going into a pellet advocacy there are usually one or two claims that the end up having merit and when you put dozens and dozens of claims and it doesn't show the strength of your case the truth is a weakness but in this what he what he was entitled to undertake he was entitled to not a court appointed not not a court expert he was a title to his own expert which he did get in this case we're on and that's that's actually a point of a point of contention i think satisfied simply by a neutral expert or does it have to be a defense of habit he said the courts are split most courts and this is the purpose of the famed looking at a summary of the course most courts actually say that a neutral expert satisf is to serve the same role as an attorney as an advocate who talks about in fact i read it very carefully on the several times the court in a suit specifically talks that all accuracy we want an accurate determination we want accurate simply supposed to win and so him this case you had the gee who was it was hall his lawyer asking even before i say i want an expert on this to help me develop this possible defense and i think it was important  been that would have been a possibility but i think if you look weird looks at the entire trial especially imogene's cross examination of the witnesses and especially imogene's extensive feehan closing comments to the jury at the guilt phase he was really attempting to try to call the commonwealth's identification of paul and as the as the killer in the question he was trying to knock out the confession saying they were going to coerce the home thought he was going to be shot if he had didn't confess and he was trying to draw a contrast between the act the physical act of his murder which was pain is beyond belief and which couldn't be denied and holland whose whose character it didn't fit into this monster this is something that we that mr walk up and i've been arguing about since the first day of this case and it's almost as if we're looking at two different transcripts because every time i hear his side of it i go back and look at the original transcript and i just think we're reading too different anybody who asks any indigent person who asks for an expert and a defense oriented expert he needs he needs to be granted in fact i asked according question i just so long as the same lines if that were the case suppose that's what years but the courts are split but courts are split as far as what satisfies a but what what i'm saying here or what we're arguing is that even if even with if we characterize the nature of the the question is what was their effort made and i think we will get a look at the cases on on independent adequate grounds you have you have the idea that if you're going to be held that something is to fa be years to to look at the number of claims that they're going to bring and to say whoa wait a minute here's here's a case from pennsylvania supreme court saying we're precluded from bringing these cases we better do something to see if we can exhaust that site because if not  we go to this federal courts the federal courts might knock it off it seems like just the fact that this is a capital case put the burden even heavier on the petitioner than it normally it plus the jurisprudence of could go back a hundred years that says that exhaustion people who files that's correct and i think i think brought shane did make that observation although it was on pointing out to the court in the cases where the case was already pending before the pennsylvania supreme court that rule that pennsylvania twenty five one is simply an equitable rule that allows living games after a case has already been submitted to the court for equitable reasons if there's a new supreme court case or there's new evidence and you already have your case admitted to the pennsylvania supreme court a it's been briefed after it's been argued it seems like a correct one of the reasons you should be able to put that information before the state court and say can we have one more chance hear hear something new and i argue we could have been made here there was here's all correct here's why didn't find any problem with it may have a pennsylvania supreme court look at the case again all this chorus of missed this glaring supposedly glaring error and it wasn't until two thousand when hall and finally filed his baby's petition that suddenly all there was a pending claim that it was  was not this actually not able to why did was not able to pick up his face because apparently she said he wore a mask and it was there was no fingerprint evidence i mean there were there were holes in the there were holes in the commonwealth case i think it was still proving beyond a reasonable doubt that got me wrong about that but i think my g d took what he could took what he was given to him and is actually did did the best he could under the circumstances he was not given much i  things looked bad and i think the specially the heinous nature of the crime which when you go through the facts when to put say and him to join your mind it's hard to forget and it's hard to get hard to ignore the meaning and the the necessary import of twenty to fifty four he won which in this case i'm following up on what mr whitehall just said is important in this case because in this case the state court made a finding of fact that