good afternoon me please the core linda mcdermott on behalf of ronald knight the single issue before the court is the ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of mr knight's capital trial and i think the way i want to start is i want to mention two circumstances relating to relating to this case st of all in one thousand nine hundred and ninety six there had been a capital trial in a separate proceeding and in that case the jury had recommended a death sentence by a twelve to zero verdict and the trial judge there overrode that and imposed a life sentence mr knight was then charged with this homicide that actually predated the other homicide which is the victim in that case is name was branded me him and so all refer to that as the me hand case and the victim in this case is richard so this i will refer to as case so in that respect counsel did have information that had already been presented to a jury and a judge about mitigation of his client there was certainly the jury came back twelve for death but the judge found some of the mitigation obviously compelling the distinctions between that case and the conch will casey were that the judge in that case did not have the prior violent felony as the homicide of mr me and because that was the case they were trying and mr congo had not yet been tried and mr knight not convicted yet on that and also in that case the judge didn't find the c c p aggravator so the judge in that case had a saying a single merged aggravator of committed in the course of a robbery and again and he did not find that sufficient to impose a death sentence in in light of the  that said the nd thing i want to just mention is that when mr sosa who is the pelley phase account counsel in the consul case was appointed he had approximately five months before mr knight asked the court to dismiss him and for him to proceed pro se the guidelines the case law at the time of this case would have been that an attorney would have the obligation to prompt investigate his client's background social history any of the information that could bear on the issue of life or death in the penalty phase so this is helpful so can you just sort of chart the chronology for me so he's sosa on the case for five months then he's dismissed in effect for how long and how long as is he sort of off the case before he's put back on the day of the st day of sentencing correct so it was in early have a conversation where mr knight agrees to put mr sosa back on as officially the penalty phase attorney he had always been stand by counsel for both the guilt and the penalty even though he had been dismissed as mr knight's attorney h been he'd been told to be standby counsel and he had been consulting with mr knight and had sat at the table with him during the guilt phase the the verdict of the guilt phase this is a judge trial and i believe it's rendered approximately approximately march th or march th right mid march there's then because it's going to be a judge penalty phase there's a four week gap there's no consideration about keeping a jury for you know out hanging out there for a long time so mr sosa then has about four weeks before judge harrison actually sets the new the penalty phase proceeding so and that begins on april th the day of the penalty phase proceeding mr sosa appears and says to the judge i'm you know i've spoken mr knight i'm fully the attorney i'm going to be presenting the evidence he references that this is the agreement they came to back during the trial and what is the record tell us about the agreement that they came to during the trial because i guess i've been thinking i guess i didn't realize sort of so much of the background that there was this agreement that sosa was kind of back in before i guess sort of what he was formally appointed on the st day of the sentencing phase right i mean i can i don't have the specific language that he used but i can give you certainly provide to the court the exact page of the transcript following the hearing if that's helpful where he references that they've they've decided that he's going to take over and be the attorney you know that we came to this agreement on  such a date i don't think he references a specific date but it appears that it's some time during the actual trial proceedings and what we do know is that sosa does in fact contacts  straus and ms has sian in the beginning of april he does the starts drafting up there the motion for appointment of experts he asks for an investigator in the beginning of april he he there was about a week to ten days between the guilt phase and the pelly phase where there's no activity according to his billing record but he does start doing things in the judge in fact when he it's not until two weeks before the pelly phase that sosa does anything other than speak to his client in relation to preparing for this this phase and there's just no explanation why in the five months that he had the case prior to his dismissal that he wouldn't have started working this case up particularly in light of the fact that he had background information from the me and case in that case they put a witness on the stand who was a licensed clinical social social worker who did a quite extensive a social history on mr knight and testified in that proceeding and he didn't just do an interview with mr knight he did a sort of a whole social history where he interviewed various people and he he got records and he court records and school records and things like that and so he does this four page or so little social history and it's on page two hundred and fifty two dollars of the record and if you go through this just this in and of itself for his testimony is sort of very similar to this there are so many red flags in here and things that would constitute mitigation that never get presented to mr knight's sentence or in this particular case there's information about mr knight substance abuse the fact that he became addicted to crack cocaine in his late teen years and was using drugs at the age of nine he was using drugs and alcohol shortly thereafter there's information about high school for boys that ultimately becomes the at rd occurred youth center he actually gives counsel the name of the witness who at the post conviction evidence you're hearing here they introduce the affidavit from m williams who talks about the trauma and the rapes and the beatings that mr knight suffered when he was a student at the eckerd youth center what i just want to be under so the so the so so learned about williams from mr knight well is that when i get my point is that sosa had this information from mr otto those so arsenal worker and he had also in sort of looking at this from the wiggins perspective he have what could he have learned from what he had and so my point is is that just this little report just that testimony that otto gives in me and is so valuable and could have been used to follow up on a whole set of mitigation that didn't get presented here and he he was facing a case that was going to be arguably more aggravated because he knew he had this prior violent felony of the homicide of me hand to deal with it so to not sort of go and tracked down the mitigation some of it's already been developed but some of it still needs to be developed and i saw mr knight in the that two week period of time when he gets retained he did go see mr knight again but he doesn't have a piece of paper he doesn't have a record nothing no witness testimony and one of the things that the trial judge does is he faults dr straus and in the end he does find the statutory mitigator that the crime was committed while mr knight is under extreme emotional disturbance or distress but he says that there's nothing in the record showing that he was at the time of the crime well the experts hadn't been given anything about the crime and at the time of the crime i point out at the trial record all one of the co defendants testified about the circumstance of the crime and used the word that following the shooting mr knight was going crazy and he was running around in this is not sort of the calm calculated cool defendant who you know did this in a premeditated highly premeditated way so had this information been given to dr straus certainly he could have talked about the c c p aggravator and then also talked about the circumstances of the crime and how that description by bernald didn't match the information that the state was trying to assert which is that this is a highly  premeditated execution that had been planned you know since earlier in the evening that night knew exactly what he was going to do was mr sosa deceased at the time of the staples conviction hearing know right now so just in it i think that this is all very relevant to this court's review to think about this in the timeline what was available to sosa and what he used what what he did was two weeks before the penalty phase he goes and he gets straus and miss has sin and he brings them in to testify they they do go see night and then he puts the mom in the sister on and that's the extent of his penalty phase in the konkan case so i think under wiggins if the in terms of deficiency there's so much evidence out there that he did not follow up on that was just at his fingertips had he just gone and you know taken that memo or taken that testimony and developed that further knowing that he's got a bit more of an issue in terms of the aggravation when asked ms campbell the same question when she gets up but all of you for since you're here despite what it said do you think the florida supreme court engaged in a prejudice analysis of sorts in addressing the performance prong of strickland well i think that the kind there is an overlap there  and i think by discrediting you know the various witnesses and saying that lippman wasn't credible and that we wouldn't consider the pearson testimony because he had an outstanding charge that they essentially were doing their weighing but they were just saying that it related to the deficiency issue i've had read it i've read it several times and every time i read it i come away with and i'm not saying it's right or wrong but i come away with the impression that there was some prejudice prong analysis within a purported discussion of performance i think that's absolutely right i mean that is i think the the only way you can read the way that they are discussing the mitigation that was presented at the evidence you're hearing there they're actually taking it and using it to determine whether or not it changes the outcome versus did so should so as to have done something for example with the with the issue about whether or not it was deficient that you know sosa didn't didn't go and speak to various witnesses they don't they never mention these issues that you know they that there are witnesses available that mr williams name was in this report it was given to him by mr knight instead they try to say that the affidavit itself you know wasn't didn't come into evidence it was only proffered which i think is a problem because obviously the experts were relying on it and talking about it so certainly could have been considered as mitigating and part of the story of mr knight's social history and circumstances and mean to cut you all know your five or so but before we leave judge jordan's question because he's read my mind i literally have a note at the top of my paper here that says you know even though it looks like the florida supreme court said it was doing only a performance analysis and didn't need to get prejudice as i read at least its analysis of several of the witnesses this is fundamentally a prejudice analysis they're sort of saying this stuff wouldn't have mattered it was cumulative we wouldn't have considered this testimony that sounds like prejudice to me and if that's true then doesn't that or might it not sort of rejigger the standard of review you know so instead of looking at prejudiced and overall now we're looking at prejudice through the lens of twenty dollars to fifty four dollars and all of the deference that comes with it because the florida state court has actually done whether whether it said it was doing something else or not it engaged in a prejudice analysis and that analysis is due the deference under twenty to fifty five well they they didn't cite to the law so we don't know that they used the correct standard so i would say that that's a problem to then say let's give them deference because it looks like they did it they would have had to say this is what strict thing calls for this is what we're required to do and they didn't do it but i don't disagree that it very are some comments that seem exactly like it was more of a prejudiced prejudiced analysis than it was a deficiency analysis it was very similar to what they did in the porter case where they just either ignored information like the substance abuse doesn't it doesn't get mention the fact that a child at nine years old starts using drugs and nobody's concerned that you know that that would be you know one of those distinct human frailties of his life that would call for explaining an understanding did is that you know this guy then goes on to commit a horrific crime and does that you know add in to whether or not he's deserving of the death penalty so one way of i guess or two maybe even more possible ways of interpreting what the florida supreme court did one is the way that your use of just articulated another one is to think that you take the florida supreme court at it word but then potentially apply not the in reasonable application prom but the contrary to prong and say to the extent you were doing a performance based analysis and only a performance based analysis there was at least some error by injecting prejudice prong considerations into that analysis i don't know what the answer is but well they certainly have those questions like yes i'm i think i i agree one hundred percent that that is a certain certainly a problem that they they didn't really discuss the deficiency so much on the deficiency prolong it so that is contrary to an unreasonable in terms of what they're supposed to be looking at under weakens the red flags the things that are out there what's available to him and then as to the prejudiced they're clearly taking this evidence and then not you know not the right one assume that for a nd so that means that this court as a panel would get to denote a review of a prejudice issue if we reached it under regular  prejudice prong of strickland how do you get around the fact of the multiple murders that's that's it seems to me that is the hardest to for you giving you everything else which is the lawyers should have done more of the lawyer had the ability to do more but some of the evidence that i want to catch this to correct some of the evidence that mr knight thinks should have been presented at mitigation some of it was presented albeit in a different way right some of his relatives testified you had dr strauss testify and so what you have is a minimal maybe deficient level of mitigation evidence more evidence that you say should have been presented but against that you've got not only the way this crime was committed but you've got the other murder view well there's no doubt that that going in the trial attorney would know that that's a weighty aggravator but had he done a thorough and competent investigation in presentation he could have put on to health statutory mitigators at the trial the judge found the extreme mental or emotional disturbance and gave it consideration but also said also made this comment that night didn't prove that it did in fact exist so that's sort of a problem and on that i would also say the state argued to the court that the experts conflicted with each other and therefore they shouldn't be given much consideration their testimony whereas in post conviction you have a consistent picture of this individual as a severely mentally ill man who suffers from paranoid disorder and that impacts all of his dated a functioning and i know the experts tried to describe what it's like to be suffering from this paranoia and it's it's i mean difficult to say the least but it's just it impacts every decision every choice everything you're thinking about as this individual so they also what was the time lapse i know i know what you explain about the sequence of the months preceding them knol processing that case so there was time when he was not incarcerated during those almost eighteen months or so but just going back to more of sort of the prejudice in the post mitigator that his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired that was not found at the time of the trial there was also the sexual abuse which is extremely  one of the most nightmarish accounts of a life that i can imagine and i know that that was not admitted into evidence it was but it was proffered and it and my understanding is neither the h court nor the four supreme court mentioned the williams affidavit so where does that fit into the strickland analysis from your your point of view i think that that's a problem because the they ignored that mitigation just like they did in porter they ignored evidence of his child abuse and things like that they minimize things in this case they just flat out never talked about substance abuse never talked about the trauma and the thing about the trauma was that the experts were able to talk about that based on their william's affidavit that was completely appropriate for them to discuss that and essentially bring it into evidence in that in that frame and yet the florida supreme court still ignored that can i just be sure i understand so it comes into the performance prong because not more was done to develop that evidence i guess if i'm understanding your argument acute use of it which pierson and testified that there was alcohol cocaine use marijuana use leading up to the crime in the days leading up to the crime and then there was some conflict about what drugs had been used on the day of the crime but it there were clearly drugs and alcohol used on the day of the crime and then it's also mitigation in terms of the length of the abuse when did it start what does that tell us about this person and obviously this is an extremely troubled struggling young man who is essentially evicted from his home by one of his mother's boyfriend in his living in the woods i i should mention that in the audio because that comes up with the sister teresa foller and the way that the florida supreme court dismisses her testimony but in otto's report it's interesting because in one of a record the dio see provide reports he says ronald said so ronald was telling someone else years before the crime that he was ejected from his mother's home so that's different than the running away terminology that used in the things like that so i would say had and i know judge you some when you granted a c e o a you mention that you know a lot of these there are sort of two sides to it could it be that he didn't adequately prepare the witness and i would say that that's exactly what happened he didn't sit with miss fowler and discuss things that were in other records in objective records and ask her to explain when i you know when you say he had a roof over his head why does it say here he was ejected and that's the kind of mitigation interview that has to be conducted to two family members are often protective of one another or they just might not have been there at the time she said she went to live with her grandmother for a period of time so it's important to really get to those matters and just jumping back on the deficiency there he didn't do that and i think that that's the explanation as to why her testimony seemed to be somewhat different and the focus was somewhat different when she came in in the post conviction hearing and was much more forthcoming and not even forthcoming but just was able to actually explain what had happened in this house to her brother as a young child i think you just won yes there are no but the stakes are high i'm not concerned too much about the time so the williams affidavit so your contention is not that the post conviction court was wrong to exclude it as a matter of hearsay right so it's excluded as a matter of hearsay but instead that it that it wasn't sort of like properly factored in i'm not going to say smuggled in for the expert reports but sort of factored into the expert reports you know they were they were absolutely wrong to exclude it in florida hearsay is admissible and there's there's no explanation as i was not state court counsel as to why the state court did not you know that they sustained that objection it should have come in a substantive evidence it is error it should be before this court as substantive evidence but it still came in through those experts so if it can come in through however you want to put it in if the fact that dr harvey talked about it talked about the extreme trauma that he underwent while he was you know a student there in the custody of the state that is compelling and has to be considered in terms of the prejudice analysis and the floor supreme court did not do that and that that is contrary to an unreasonable application of porter and weight gains and and it may i reserve the rest of my time you have at reserve will give you your good afternoon may it please the court leslie campbell with the attorney general's office on behalf of the state what needs to also be added to the history of this case is that the two expert they had an understanding of mr knight then when called upon in the murder they just reiterated and updated their information now as far as that williams affidavit is the the before we go to what the counter is and i'm sorry that i'm not up to speed on florida evidence law but so she says sure it comes in  phase hearsay is admissible if the state has a reasonable opportunity to rebut we can't rebut an affidavit nonetheless the experts were allowed to rely upon it now remember he thought he remembered a mr knight but it was all wrong mr knight he remembered an african american and mr knight is caucasian so he couldn't say for a fact that mr knight was abused at the school he couldn't say for a fact that there was abuse other than what was in the he never witnessed abuse misters editing but if he if you just knew about another ronald knight how does that exclude the possibility that there were two ronald knights one of whom was abuse and one of whom was not one of whom was caucasian one of whom was not we're not disputing the fact that mr knight ronald knight was at that school were saying so if he was at that school then this witness's statement didn't preclude any possibility that our mr knight was in fact abused as the williams affidavit indicated well mr knight himself denied any abuse well and in well he at some point suffered some trauma and loss of testicle he never ever ever told any of his experts that he was abused well that's another that's that's a different counter but i'm saying i'm saying th to converse i know what i'm and i'm suggesting to you that from my perspective that st counter isn't worth much because if you admit that mr knight was at eckerd the fact that this other witness knew another ronald knight who was of a different race and wasn't abused doesn't say anything about what happened to our mr knight it's one thing if you said there was only one ronald night at eckerd and mr williams was mistaken about who that ronald knight was because we have evidence that there was another ronald knight but if you admit there were two than this affidavit says nothing pro or con about what may have happened to to mr knight ok so let me let me ask you the question that i asked mr macdermot which is the florida supreme court says expressly that it is doing only a performance analysis under strickland yet i cannot get the nagging feeling out of my head that it is partly doing a prejudice analysis in part what do you say i think they were doing a prejudice analysis in part because of the close link to the evidence that they were analyzing could taking that contrary to under two thousand two hundred and fifty four they say they're doing performance but they're applying the wrong performance standard no i don't believe they were applying the wrong performance standard they still were analyzing the evidence remember we don't have we didn't have mr sosa i know but the way you analyze that evidence well i know we're giving deference but i'm the the the regular way you would analyze that evidence is to say you know this witness had issues and the lawyer had reasons for not calling the witness because it could have been a double edged sword of the testimony was a limited probative value except or etc but you don't decide performance by doing a hindsight analysis of whether or not had that testimony been presented it would have made a difference that's not correct as a legal matter right in this particular case we don't have the strategy of of mr sosa and no but what we do have is we have the same experts who testified for the me hand murder testifying for the come and we have those experts looking at this new information that was brought out at  the post conviction and what we only had dr stress testify he didn't change his testimony he did not change his opinion so in analyzing that it does kind of use a little bit of the prejudice analysis we have the performance where he says i've looked at the new new information i'm not changing my my opinion but that also then kind of morphs into a prejudice analysis because if he doesn't change his opinion then the analysis of mitigation and aggravation doesn't change comes forward and now he embellishes the amount of drugs that are used dr strauss took that into consideration in re assessing his he he was under the influence of all of these drugs dr strauss took that into consideration and he again didn't change his testimony didn't change his opinion the court in the florida supreme  that in analyzing pearson and lippman clearly would be looking at both performance and a say a similar analysis would have been done for prejudice because lippman could not tell you could not tell us how many or how much of any particular drug or how it really affected the defendant to the extent that he did his doctor laments testimony again is is rejected as not credible because he relied on another non credible witness so when you're looking at the analysis of lippman and appears with regard to drugs it again as i say takes into consideration the prejudice prong with regard to what mr knight sr testif you think that because the florida supreme court in part performed the prejudice analysis that we have to accept that determination as having been made and then give it deference under and but no your honor i accept that they said they did not do a full you know a straightforward prejudice analysis what i am saying is that they did  finning because of further consideration over time and because she then became a mother now how you're going to convince somebody or prepare them differently  requires too much of of defense counsel defense counsel can discuss that you know a poor child him and is mitigating or an abusive traveler is mitigating but the defendant got the benefit of a poor childhood it was given weight in the sentencing order the mental mitigation was given weight in the sense sentencing order so what we have is basically either cumulative evidence we have refuted evidence we have a doctor doesn't change his testimony and you can't just bring in a doctor hoping for a more favorable opinion and say what defense council did was deficient with regard to  me again i think it's important that he wasn't able to identify the defending court even though that was the allegation that he was going to you know be able to tell that this was the defendant  this was a person he had in his school so overall sosa had the same mitigation that was brought out in post conviction and even if you give additional credit to the post conviction mitigation it is not going to overcome cold calculated in premeditated the testimony is pretty clear that  the defendant got out told the the victim to take his pants off and then shot him in the back it was something that mr knight had planned even though he hadn't shared the plan of the killing committing the exact same type of murder wolf initially with mister and then while out on bail with mr me him and that's the evidence that the trial court relied upon in coming up with a cold calculated premeditated and the prior violent felony the robbery and the pier again the during the the felony murder circumstances in florida and the minor mitigation they came out in the post conviction certainly it didn't change the opinion of the expert and it doesn't change the prejudice for just as to the williams affidavit in garcia versus state the floor supreme court said hearsay is admissible at a capital felony absurd a couple pelly phase when you're doing a post conviction evidence you're hearing obviously you're putting on evidence that you're saying could have been put on at your penalty phase and there was ample opportunity for the state to go meet with mr williams this was not a post conviction evidentiary hearing that went off in the course of a day or two there were multiple gaps in the hearing had they wanted to speak to mr williams they could have it was it should have come in as substantive evidence and it is before the court as to dr harvey testimony at the very least and the trauma that he says mr knight experienced when he was at at eckerd youth center just as the finale is his last name is f similar to sergeant i'm sorry tenet colonel suburban pratt who testified in the porter case pratt didn't know porter he knew porter he could review is his records from the military and see that porter was in his unit and he came in and he told the the post conviction court what happened to that unit during the korean war and explain the battles that were fought and the conditions that they were fought under and that was considered mitigating he didn't say i saw quarter do x y and z i know that porter was you know did shot this particular person or was shot he  could just say these are the circumstances under which mr porter served finale likewise came in and said these are the circumstances under which mr knight was at the eckerd youth center it was an extremely and place where the federal government got involved in eventually took the the state's control of it away from them and to a private company took over and mr finn l discussed all of the various violent things that had been happening and how how it was changing and how he was sort of trying he he bridge that gap from okeechobee all the way to acard and so he had a lot of information to share in terms of how it changed and things like that but at the time mr knight was there it was severely overcrowded violence was not unusual at all between students and as well as between super the the people who were supervising the children and in the children and so his testimony is absolutely mitigating in that these are the conditions in which mr knight was spent eighteen months of his life and it was it was not a good situation it was is the type of information that certainly should be considered mitigating what would you do i guess as a factual matter with miss campbell's point that night you know testified that he wasn't abused and i think pearson right said he would have told me if he'd been abused you know pierson said he wouldn't have told me and i think any reasonable capital attorney knows that a client is not going to want to discuss the abuse that they've experienced and you have to go to the outside sources and i don't know from me and serve that up and said you know there was there was sexual abuse that had occurred at  so you would have to go and find and night gave otto two names of people that he was friends with one of those being williams so to not follow up with those people is so deficient and anybody any reasonable capital attorney would do that would follow up with those people because that was obviously i think otto specifically said that was the point that night said his life changed dramatically let me ask you was his time there and you've tried and i think we've cut you off but you've tried it several times when alan does this case to porter and certainly procedurally porter sets up pretty similarly in the sense that you know sort of once dismissed standby counsel sort of parachutes back in but isn't the case different from porter in a couple of respect that and porter isn't the delta between the mitigation at sentencing and the medication on the of an entry hearing a little bit greener and porter and more importantly in the sense that there you very clearly you have evidence that runs to new mitigating factors right instead of confirming some of hardening conclusions with respect to existing mitigating factors and then maybe more importantly in porter didn't  aggravators drop away for us here you don't have that right see aggravator and porter drop away it did on the direct appeal you're correct so i mean isn't it a little bit different from porter in the sense that the delta both on the mitigation side is greater and on the aggravator side as well i would also point out porter was a double homicide in this you know at the same time of a mother and his ex what ex girlfriend and her new boyfriend so there was there was two murders and two death recommendations in that in that case and obviously porter's heroic military service is outstanding mitigat however every court that looked at it before the u s supreme court there then i'm sorry the district court judge found had it had reversed the florida supreme court that then was reversed by this court so found that it wasn't substantial wasn't sufficient and i would note that even at porter's trial there was reference to his military history no one outlined it the way that pratt outlined it during post conviction but it was certainly out there that he had served in the korean war and fought on those battlefields so while the jury had that it obviously substantially changed when we got to post conviction as to understanding exactly what he was involved with but what i would say is you know the respondent keeps arguing that dr strauss didn't change his testimony and he didn't change his diagnosis but he says i didn't i didn't know this guy when i testified i know so much more about him and he outlines everything he was given and all the information he had and he says this strengthened it the substance abuse in of itself gives me all sorts of information about that adds to his paranoia because you know alcohol and drugs they they also create sort of a level of paranoia so he said there's this synergistic effect going on and i would say that yes we have a sentencing order the judge or and what he said was he indicates that there that the stat mitt of the emotional disturbance he says that he there was no proof that mr knight was was that was present at the time of the crime he doesn't find the substantial impairment he says he may have been impaired but now we have that strauss gave us that in post conviction with all of the information he was given about the drug and alcohol abuse so i would say there's there's a lot of similarity into the the what the quality of the mitigation in post conviction versus the quality of mitigation at that trial so can i ask you just factual question yes and i'm i just may have this wrong i'm looking at page twenty three of your brief and you say pearson also testified that he knew knight suffered a ruptured testicle and that night had described him his involvement in several flight school but that night would not have told him if he had been sexually molested while there right right so i thought you told me that you said pierson said he would have told him no pearson said he would not have told me that ok right all right very well as for the mix right is right just want one last thing is when you look at the way the trial court analyzed mr knight's background he said that the evidence establish that the defendant came from a broken home and had a less than ideal childhood unfortunately in this day and day and age his situation is not uncommon so that was his analysis of after hearing what was put on at the trial that that was not an uncommon kind of  reaction to a divorce well with the testimony that was put on the post conviction at the post conviction evidence you hearing i submit that the that the evidence the in mitigation has trained changed drastically and isn't isn't the same as what the trial court heard it's very different and the sentencing order demonstrates that quite frankly the judge didn't give it much weight at all so i would ask this court to  on you to take some of the toughest cases we haven't when we always count on you to educate us and as you've done today on this campbell well i think two of the three of us at least were in