that any attorney would have motivated any competent attorney to have done at least enough and best to gauge and to make an informed decision as to whether or not that fact might lead to potentially mitigating evidence for the sentencing hearing especially given the severity his client to evaluate the materiality of evidence that's why you have an attorney that you know but is but his his attorney i think to term separate attorney said he didn't think the a thing wrong with this guy i mean when we talked to him he was clear he gave us information everything seemed fine as far as we could tell and he said he didn't have any problems in the past that's what he said is he the guy also  attorneys don't see him as mentally ill well that clue that he says there's nothing wrong with me you know and that's a symptom of the disease a symptom of that is really what is grandiose delusions and grandiose means you say i'm not i'm not mentally ill go ok well i say the same thing do i have a grandiose delusion i suppose i might be going to answer that question the records from napa records from nap jenkins had no insight into his situation and he denies he is mentally ill his delusion which was chronic and ongoing was that he was not mentally ill in fact that's why it was so important i'm just focused on mr fooled by mr jenkins delusion i'm sorry i'm not what was the information that he had that should have tipped him off that this is that he had been a napa state hospital in the seventy's why else would someone be at the state mental institution other than that he was your defense attorney i take this you probably know a lot better than i do but i take it folks have lots and lots and lots of clients and lots and lots and lots of cases and we're talking this guy and he seems clear isabel he seems perfectly sound to the arguments he makes in his new trial motion are symptom of delusional thinking they were frivolous they were ridiculous in light of the evidence at trial and mr jenkins was stuck on that that this is quote an intelligent and likable guy who would really wasted his life unquote he would have discovered that in fact mr jenkins was mentally ill had grandiose ideas of how smart he was when in fact he was in the don't normal range of intelligence he was semi the court was unaware of the most potentially of the most powerful mitigating evidence in the case it was far more powerful because it gave an explanation an answer to mr jenkins criminal record that he thought there was a reason other than he was a commitment thirty years ago should we strike as priors and not let him be sentenced and the three strikes law correct when i don't leave because of the commitment your honor it was an ongoing mental illness he was mentally ill  about my question my question yes ok and the evidence of the chronic mental illness what if allowed defense counsel to argue that he was less culpable and less deserving of punishment under the three strikes law than offenders not suffering from that chronic the same chronic disability i think that would have been a significant handle for the trial court to strike at least one prior in which case he could that the sense in court was had an unclear or untrue inaccurate picture of who mr jenkins was and didn't know what his background was didn't know what his prospects were it was an untreated mentally ill  man i think the court would have treated his case differently had it knowing that and i think mr riggs given that clue despite mr jenkins the novel which i think was a result of his mental illness