good morning your hono i would argue that under either that that it's appropriate to find who are also for work on the u c claim strickland under twenty two fifty four d one as well as an unreasonable adjudication of fact under twenty two fifty four d two in fact multiple unreasonable adjudications of fact under d chip so i would argue that either way in the alternative this case points to reversal you know  allowed to rely on his own opinions this case our case is distinguishable because we have a situation where where we have our expert declarations show that trial counsels incompetence but also d aria specifically told counsel diplomatic that he needed to consult with a forensic pathologist and here trial counsel was not relying exclusively were necessarily even primarily on  is certainly part of what i know he went better than that he actually met what the state's expert before the expert was called as a witness and he knew what the expert at least all that he would say so he was more prepared than most on cross distinction here is trial counsel to was specifically advised to consult independently with a forensic psychologist by an expert who gave them incorrect advice that torpedoed of that was one of the reasons he made as you see just decision not to call his own expert because that doctor had miscalculated the blood alcohol exactly and even and that doctor told long well yes you have my report but i am not a forensic pathologist you need to consult with a forensic pathologist didn't long do that no he did not instead he relied sick arias erroneous report right after sick arias himself had gotten done telling him no you need to consult with a forensic pathologist which is not what i am sorry even referred him to a but you see it was in the extra record evidence subsequent to that that that we get the declaration from doctors the chorus and he consulted with me what consultation it was not a meaningful consultation it was a it was a brief telephone call in which i told him that he needs to consult with a forensic pathologist like dr to googe but he got his alternative then hiring your own hired gun you get it through the state's witness so what i guess i want to know why isn't that a classic strategic decision because the state's expert was directly wrong with his testimony on a key forensic issue that should have been clarified in impeached but wasn't with these issues that that issue was on how does head rush sacks occur versus and that has to do with the mechanics of the blood carrying oxygen going to or from the brain and how that also manifests in the that your client repeatedly for many months and certainly right after the death toll never indicated he had had sex with the decision and that came much later once they understood the state's case you know disagree with that do you yes your honor my client did not deny he very early on when he when very early on when his first darty first was on the scene he was a friend he initially the client was a little squirrelly talking about that he had sex remember this was this was a long time ago in terms of how open we might feel comfortable to be about same sex relationships the deceit and alex campbell himself was largely closeted own stepdaughter didn't even know that he was get your body or how to live in boyfriend who was my client just holes work suppose the case had been jane and alex rather than jeff and alex well maybe there wouldn't even be a case your honor that's what i think i mean gavin newsom mayor newsom in san francisco hadn't even issued same sex marriage licenses for a few years yet until long after the conviction was finally under state law people were schoolish and squeamish about it even the way trial counsel talked about it in trial was really squeamish you can't blame it's understandable  himself very early on particularly before you even realize that he was going to be a suspect might not want to speak so freely and openly about oh yeah we were having had rush sex and i don't think that would be a reason not to have d n a evidence to link it but the but there wasn't any d n a evidence no there wasn't your honor and you know maybe on a retrial there ought to be right there  completely consistent with what our post conviction experts believe to be the way it all happened and when asked about rough sex jeff denied it well of course he denied it because what nobody really explained clearly at any point in the trial were at any point in interviewing jeff is that r for people who have that on their radar in their personal world at all rough sex means whips and chains and violence and stuff and jeff was adamant oh no we had no violence in our relationship well they didn't what they felt was erotic asphyxiation which jeff didn't know that clinical term either he called it had rushed sex and pena the coroner had a good time confusing the concepts in fact there was even one point in the testimony early on when pena when they were when and i don't even think we're talking about i don't even think i'm talking about  well what is rough sex really and pena took it upon himself to set to start talking and saying and don't even talk to me about auto erotic s don't want to go there i'm not a lawyer which is really snide disparaging remark but that's beside the point and then so but of course that got the blanks goat and said oh you're not a lawyer well you weren't there were you not in effect of her failure to percent certain experts if you're able to successfully elicit that information so you could argue it on close the information that was cartman would have offered if he had taken the stand with the same information that you know testified the deputy coroner when he was cross examined about cartman's opinion that this could have been a fatal cardiac arrhythmia event wasn't there margy car didn't cartman criticize the coroner's report because it didn't hartmann criticize the coroner as you part because it didn't go fully into the whole cardiac issue and didn't distinguish between heart attack or investigation that i undertook that we have that here he spoke the carbon and he said well cartman is not willing to say that it was a cause of death was was was was the heart condition he was more comfortable talking about mathematical probabilities of mortality rates in the general population of those with similar conditions to campbell and that he felt that he really wasn't willing to say that cartons i'm sorry camels cause a deaf was from the cardiac condition and even in th declaration that your honor is referring to he qualifies he quit the case against saying it could have been a fatal cardiac arrhythmia that however but if the corner find something else that's subject to qualification to another cause of death for the corner here a heart condition he had blockages but there's not a shred of evidence anywhere in any record that i could find correct me if i'm wrong that indicates that he had actually died of a heart attack is just some possibility point to that evidence that there was a cardiac event and that he won this you know don't really talk about the mathematical possibilities probabilities of the general population but wasn't a blank scared off from using cartman because the he chose not to picard but on the stand he said after he spoke to cartman and got back to the written opinion he met with cartman again he can't quote reservations for the reasons i just laid out so double our continued his investigation and he went and met with two forensic pathologist the deputy coroner and his supervisor and the deputy coroner was of course certified a specialist and considering campbell sixty eight that is that if we can't and he spoke you know at length with  both corners the corners then conferred and the deputy coroner said you know i'm going to change my opinion as to the cause of death it's going to be either a homicide from as fixation compression a fixation or it could be accidental death you know due to erratic activity to enhance orgasm and obviously the contributing factors were testified to by the corner of the heart condition as well as the alcohol use hand in hand these all went together that caused the death at the end of the day  it wasn't until that point that the block testifies because i had made a decision not to use them but now that i had the quote the corner on my side unquote i didn't necessarily need to use the equip you know the  so his decision and he did acknowledge that partner had wonderful credentials he said there was something that i was concerned about that would maybe detract from his opinion he couldn't recall it is testimony what that was  but you know that doesn't mean that that was the difference between him being a clinical teacher or a teacher that the perhaps there was a question that he was really teaching at u c l a no your honor that's not supporting the record that isn't that's argue well i thought that was what just convicted he wrote per se a letter to the trial court i'm not happy with my attorney to block and so the trial courts you know received that letter regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and it was the expert appointment issue that's when that issue was decided at that hearing and then i believe that was the first resolution of them and the first court pill decision use enough experts in the type of experts he wanted to biomechanical expert he wanted you know he complained that he didn't have a cardiologist actually take the stand and carpeting would have been so i think pro se petitioners complaints were that the representation wasn't there on the off in the investigation and the choice and use of experts however the standard under strickland is if you've done a thorough investigation and i think it will take the court through that i  this information together and decided it boiled down to what was petitioners intent at the time they had sex and you can infer from the blacks testimony at the evidentiary hearing petitioner at told they had not only had sex but there was some sort of erotic activity to enhance orgasm but getting back to a point made earlier it's almost a case of in effect of assistance the client because when the client took the got to put your hands on the guy's next on direct examination he was taken through a very thorough recounting of the sexual adventures and encouraged to be as open as possible and they went through all the hand positions on cross examination the prosecutor said did you harm mr campbell in any way know that it put your hands on his neck and choke him which is the very definition of erotic activity to enhance orgasm he said absolutely not and then the other issue that doomed petitioner's case that did not render ineffective assistance of counsel was this defense which was the defense that the block reasonably settled upon after looking at all the facts and doing a thorough investigation depended upon petitioners credibility and to block didn't stop his representation with adverse verdict he took time to speak to the jury what went wrong and this is in the evidentiary hearing testimony that jers told him but once you start talking about using the dead man's credit cards you know he lost all credibility  a reasonable this it's what the block knew at the time after he made his reasonable investigation and the california supreme court's rejection of the claim was attractively reasonable and just a brief word on the deference  if there is a procedural bar that's been imposed by a lower court that has not been lifted by the later court normally generally the procedural bar is still in place on the merits having been reached however in this case the superior court did not accepted ineffective assistance of counsel claims such as in people v mendoza tello from that procedural bar and the case that i put before the court was her nose up which in that case the superior court rejected the or california supreme court that they are the united states supreme court that the california supreme court had a statewide venue and would not have denied it on venue grounds same case situation now is here the california supreme your honor the case that you mentioned of of concern harrington v richter it's one thirty one escort seven seven day and the particular peaches to look to to distinguish harrington from the case spatter issue in harrington the reactor was not anticipated early on at page pinpoint page seventy two of that decision makes clear that it was pretty much a surprise turn that the prosecution started early in the trial trial counsel was not in the position to anticipate that that was  fically with the case was going to be all about and that is why the supreme clear found that's one of the two reasons why the supreme court found that it was reasonable of trial counsel to have not complied consulted with blood spatter evidence blood spatter evidence experts but rather to be shooting from the hip more or less at that juncture because it could not have been anticipated and what the health with the u s supreme court how the u s supreme court described it at ten point page seventy nine is that from the perspective quote from the perspective of richter's defense counsel when he was preparing ric defense there were any number of hypothetical experts specialists in psychiatry psychology ballistics fingerprints tire treads physiology or numerous other disciplines and subject disciplines his insight might have been useful here to block out actually had submitted funding requests that had been granted not only was it clear with this case was going to be about and never diverged from that but to belong himself the anticipated with the case was going to be about into blank's mind he did consult he did pursue this type of experts when he talked with sykora but just presumption for a look through when we have the superior court decision and then followed by summary denials incurring in that presumption was rebuffed rebutted because a procedural bar based on venue could not possibly it's literally impossible even theoretically who are a procedural problem on venue to be at issue in the california supreme court which is the only who are at that level ok now yes we do have mendoza tell it but mendoza teller does not hold categor of creating the exception to a wall three s by way of meant as a tele is to facilitate the opportunity for new evidence and in this case in particular that opportunity was there this case differs from the