defense counsel recognized this in opening statements and closing arguments and the entire defense ten just on discrediting her testimony with respect to the kidnapping and sexual assault despite what the district court here described as compelling and consistencies dramatically shifting versions and flat out factually false statements with respect to her testimony there and it also noted a lack of any physical evidence of rape nonetheless the jury convicted  brought to the jury's attention and the jury didn't believe your client's position that's why we have juries how do we reverse something that the jury weighed and decided against that's absolutely true what you've said about the fact that they convicted despite vigorous cross examination and all these inconsistency is pointed out what i would say is the term the straw that broke the camel's back comes to mind there is a point when all the in consistency is their weight and you throw one more you throw two more on and either one or more jurors decides that they can't now reconcile it so there is a point when the scale chefs became the focus of the le the california supreme court could have concluded those rid of them by as witnesses and so focus of what's a pro yeah what's the foundation for saying that if he had put on evidence of the suppose of side effects of lexapro that would of that there was some foundation to say that that would have been compelling evidence affidavit comes down to the possibility that there could have been fantasizing is that enough to say counsel knows if you're going to say that the victim of a sexual assault is lying you better have a good explanation for it or that they're making up a story we know for sure she was making up stories on all kinds of levels about what happened that day but at the end of the day that's all true but the reality is the lexapro doctor plotkin the defense counsel did tried to introduce some evidence that he was going to have because the court found that would be a mini trial about what the effects of this were coupled with the fact that dr plotkin said you could call it either way sometimes it improves your memory sometimes it testified to but the district court noticed and changed you know made its own statement on that in fact up to plot meant plotkin did not there was no evidence going to be introduced about lexapro he was going to speak to self cutting  and about a loose connection between s yeah and that was speaking to the judgment aspect which of course would defense counsel introduced on credibility but there was no vince proffered regarding hallucinations or delusions and i think that it's incredibly incredibly important for a jury to have some some way to deal with inconsistent things that she presented and based on what the district court said i think there's adequate inconsistency let me ask you this counsel because i'm looking at dr documentation and it isn't too different than the other doctors and that there's an opinion that it's possible that she could have been experiencing a manic switch and one of the side effects is delusion so it's possible so had counsel called an expert like dr carson off i suppose the best you could do is that this is the explanation for why she's lying but given the fact that it was brought out before the jury that she was materially inconsistent in many important respects and that was the her credibility was the centerpiece of the defense how is it reasonable for the state court to say that the failure to call  instead they denied it in a summary denial and as we know from harrington director that is on the merits but we also know from penn holster is that we then look to see what did the state court know in do and in this case when the state court does not the state court not to find a prima facia case so that's taking as true all of petitioners allegations and then deciding whether it meets the standard and in this case it clearly does he alleged supports the defense counsel's hit that the absolutely supports the defense that he chose to present and so if you look at the lock evidence and you look at the lexapro both point to the fact that she has  instead of lying that she has delusions that would account for all of her inconsistency is so i think that it goes to bat i don't have a the a particular case that i can cite right now for that but in our briefing we do cite several cases for the proposition that where defense counsel has chosen a certain line of defense that where he fails to present evidence that supports that defense  please the court supervising deputy attorney general stephen matthews for responding to question before the court is whether the state court was unreasonable in rejecting these claims of ineffective assistance of counsel the district court properly concluded that the state court was not  we first of all we don't have a declaration put forward by counsel as to what their stress his strategy was nor was there anything in the record as to why such a declaration was not sought in any event here the victim testified that what that she did lock herself in the bathroom door and in fact evidence was put before the court through the district attorney who stated to the court that petitions father had been to the landlord asked if there was a lock on the door and in fact the landlord said there is a lock on the door and please leave me alone and don't go through the courts or the police if you want to come back so the council we don't know what council did we don't know if counsel investigate the bathroom door lock but we what we do know is that the victim testified that there was adult lot on the bathroom door and that they district attorney but before the court that the petitioner's father had been to the residence asking whether there was a lock on the door and the landlord said there was there's a good reason for not putting on evidence of the bathroom door lock and that's to prejudicial addressed as well as to let the lexapro  to the lexapro use i think what's not the court counsel hasn't put forward for the court is the counsel in fact sought permission to include in his opening statement to the jury a reference to the fact that a few weeks prior to the incident the victim quote i don't think the anti depressant you could make a call on either way that could improve or road somebodies judgment depending on what phase they're in or what they're being treated for cutting that that was but that but the but the the depressant and anxiety medication and that the trial court denied that and and also dr with respect to her argument counsel focused on the side effect of  being delusions and the declaration that's in the record talks about studies of teenagers who experience hallucinations and paranoid delusion course was that the are suggesting for the court is that counsel was ineffective for not expert shopping for finding another expert who would it would have provided different testimony than the board certified  that testimony for the reasons that the district court and the magistrate properly outlined and that is petitioner can't demonstrate first of all that it would have been admitted the judge had already denied petitioners own psychiatric testimony and and this regard as that would provide in many trials counsel could have said that trying to find a new what a new psychiatric witness to provide different testimony would have likely met the same result moreover that even even as to that testimony there was no testimony that the victim ever took lexapro there was no testimony or evidence how much she took there was no testimony that this victim actually experienced those side effects the district attorney as the court  found would have been able to show that those side effects were very remote and rare only one point two percent experiencing such side effects so the fact is what counsel have a reasonable basis for not putting on that evidence is there a strategy that we can and we can reasonably determine the council would have rejected putting out on yes because that such findings would have been rejected by the court wouldn't be able to put them on and that such the showing of the testimony was based on very little that would relate to this prong the question is whether the jury would have believed that would have believed that the victim hallucinated all these events but the fact is as a district court found there was substantial evidence corroborating her account including the fact that there was photos in the camera in the in the petitioner's residence that corroborated that she was forced to post for erotic photos there was the landlord saw her uncontrollably crying as she left the residence there was no question she was there  this evidence wouldn't have given the jury's perceptible or significant different impression of the victim's credibility that was already significantly questioned by trial counsel in his cross examination and all that was put before the jury the tr counsel in his closing argument argument highlighted those in consistencies and the multiple versions of the victim's story asked the jury to consider that the story had changed and specifically argued that the victim's credibility depended on the presence of a second man so the question range of possible reasons petitioners counsel may have had for proceeding as they did so that's that's the inquiry we're conducting but that we're on here and the baby s in here the state court reasonably rejected both claims of ineffective assistance so i think any questions all submit responded notes says that there's evidence that there was a bathroom lock and so that that dispelled defense counsel's obligation to look into this and i just want to say that there's absolutely no evidence to that what he's referring to is the prosecutor statement at trial that the landlord patrick could learn from the current tenant that there was all now a lock on the door every counsel we're talking about here was not the absolute truth that one of the question was whether the council was deficient within the meaning of strickland yes if i understood what he was saying it was hey there's contrary evidence here who knows what the jury with the believe bottom line is that came out right i guess what i'm fish and see what i'm saying is that there was no contrary evidence this was just a statement by the prosecutor to the court  and in fact with this type of generalized unsupported statement it wouldn't dispel his duty to check it out for example she had already said twice to police and once to her boyfriend that she had jumped to escape from a bathroom window in that bathroom window didn't exist so then when she moved into i locked myself in the bathroom when i had to come out because there was nowhere to go because there was no window i was then forced to orally copulate mr pasa locker to show that that bathroom lock didn't exist a minor detail i would also i think we're over time now i know that you would eloquently ok argue your client's case for an indefinite period of time where they're that right but thank you so much much both of you for your argument the case just argued is submitted