and he interviewed this guy who got it he did in fact in this case write about the connections between mr holmes not on it and his vietnam experience we have to remember that during the one nine hundred seventy eight and seventy nine hundred eight what do i need to do to rule that in or out he did not hire a consultant who had that expertise in wigan's the supreme court found that counsel like here who had done something they had some records this is not a case fell short of the prevailing professional standards of practice in maryland at that time for development of a mitigation case which included doing a comprehensive social history and to that extent i believe it actually calls part of hendrix which is not at issue problem why is that not what you're arguing because i'm arguing that the later developed materials that we worked up go to prejudice when we're talking about reasonable mass which is where i am disagreeing with the magistrate judge what counsel had in front of him in  at least brief that part of her job was to look at any developments in the field of psychology that might be relevant her billing records show her only literature review involved dioxins meaning agent orange exposure no literature review around  point is that as to the reasonableness of the decision to forgo it p t s d investigation there was no review of the literature and the last trial until the new trial to see what else might be necessary and that was have screwed up but the lawyer is entitled to rely on a consultant the lawyer is also and this is where karl vs holder on comes and the lawyer is responsible for determining each volume of transcript has a notice was lodging on it and it's in this fashion however in talking to the lawyer i'm not sure that you guys actually received it and so i would invite the court perhaps to check the records to see if that they are big copy or boxes if there is a difficulty in finding it it's perhaps because and i'm just guessing secretary might have put of course it's not final yet either it was literally just filed practically yesterday so anyway one of the one of the one of the things to keep in mind in any kind of strickland analysis loadstone stricklin analysis is to look at the facts as developed and before the attorney at the time he's making decisions about what to do and in this particular case we have a defendant who's statements at the time of the crime and whose testimony at the first trial absolutely precludes the argument that oh i murdered while under the influence of a flashback to a combat experience  we have here saying i don't have to take this shit anymore we have him shooting his wife then going up stairs overturning a bad looking at the trigger and saying i'm sorry i have to do this to you seminar and he could then turn around and look at the facts of his own case and go that is not going to apply because if i get an expert up there trying to say that this crime occurred under the influence of a flashback from vietnam i'm going to get the defendant's admission shove right down my throat it would be so ugly there's no way it was even remotely practicable to try to present that kind of a defense and and he he has to look at the facts as he can't chan those facts i mean no consulting of experts on what medical standards are going to change the facts of what the defendant did at the time and it's just fine what he's done at that time that to me that rule out here you seem to think it's obvious  my problem is this a person can be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and indeed that just order not be causal in the crime committed so it is possible i'm not saying it's the case but it's possible he has post traumatic stress disorder in some fashion or another but that is not what caused him to kill we have his own statements at the time we have kimberly's statements of what he said at the time he  under the influence of the vietnam flashback when he shot these people so you can't show the facts of the murder and to some general diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder of the murders i should say that's the primary problem with it with that kind of approach and in this particular case i also wanted to address the jury misconduct issue before the court two articles has just appeared in the in the paper he basically got everything all these years in front of him and asked lots and lots of detail questions that is that is a going forward decision in other words it's court's inquiry was generated by the trial court saying ok i believe the jurors i think this had minimal of fact i don't think this has anything to do with the issues that are going to be tried but you know what i want to hear the entire  phase all you know one day of it and i want to reserve the ability to to to have a new trial if i think that it in turn the way the evidence came out there's just no way that this would have worked to in your opinion about whether or not the defendant was insane at the time he committed these murders both of those psychiatry said that had absolutely nothing to do with the in it isn't even relevant to our determination of what he was thinking at the time that he killed these people and i should give you our two sites for that since i'm not sure that you've got the transcript anyway that dr french's that are in the second trial this case is the fact that so many jurors themselves miss remembered the extrinsic evidence that they had heard in a way that made it even worse for the defendant they didn't remember that surely had written letters making accusation remembered that mr paul men had directly written threatening letters which was not true finally a very important point the magistrate judge makes a misstatement of the record on this issue that is inconsistent with what's before you