justice michael green for the petition it seems to me that the issues are pretty well set out in the moving papers in the central issue of trial of course rather than it was under the influence of if the issue is whether or not it's exhaustion and whether it's been waived then of course we're stuck with whether or not this court believes that by citing cases to the state supreme court or why states  but you know i've been doing this longer than i care to say and when you look back at a trial attorneys and try to judge them and what they did or what they didn't do you could  extreme mental disturbance and he gets up there and explains how life was with his wife and other people come in and say how it wasn't on the other side brings in people and say you know what she was a wonderful lady all i could  well i'm getting i'm getting close but but you know there's always a battle of course whether it's civil whether it's criminal you call your guys they call their guys but you know it's interesting invariably when when the day is done and you speak to some of the jurors and say you know what i believe that i really believe in the credibility of this rightness of that expert and i thought the expert actually understood what they were doing as opposed to someone else but at least get a chance get the chance and you know when you read when you come in following the first trial and you know the results of the trial and you obviously read th inconsistent theories that we put it in the break but you know i frankly am not buying into that because i think the trial lawyer has a i mean probably an obligation to do that we put it in basically because it was there and it was an issue  consideration frankly i didn't consider it very much when i look at what our papers were but when you look at the task of the station has to be replaced and as i said when you go in with these facts and you understand what i'm going to have to say and the reasons for it a medical expert that at least gives you the parameters of what stressors can cause certain effects in a human being i mean what drives people to to react and do certain things if you don't have that before the jury that's at least an inference that i think it's reasonable for george to go back and start saying you know what if if these facts first that you did this kind of of an emotional or mental i can we can hear from some i mean there's all kinds of doctors that are available to tell us so one doctor says yes one doctor says no but at least give the friend of the opportunity to be defended probably just before you conclude i want to go back to the in that way to say why it's an aberration or it's different and everything else i think you want to try saying why is the operation i'm just saying that in peterson we look to the state court definition of in fact in effect the substance to say that if you've raised it in state court nature of the facts which make any contention that tells them have done something different rather specious i believe in the first issue there is absolutely no doubt that the whole standard and the federal standard are completely and his friends it's over and and when we look at the government saying you know what this was a mountain of evidence welfare people decided there was an issue the first time and it's only based on one thing my an answer is why i didn't call the next don't we have to look to see how reasonable that you and i think number one there should be a hearing on the machine but you know west as lawyers not in this record requests here well i mean just to find out what