took the case to stipulate a bench trial of this defense he hired two experts to provide an opinion as to whether the defendant was insane at the time of the offense neither expert provided an opinion as to the find the state of mind when the murder occurred the state hired its own expert and she provided an opinion that the defendant was s would say that he was as any liberal considering the claim as i understand it he was claiming that counsel should have obtained the from the looking from the experts that he hired now here's what he had to one of them could not because she was not provided with enough information she said i just can't i don't have the expertise based on the information that was provided to his mental state for his current mental state that was in the state he was question examine the defendant for his mental state at the time of the crime and his counsel failed to correct that mistake well ineffective in going forward without having left without having an opinion as to that it was yes that could be read into the claim at this point the claim needs to be liberally construed it's a name doesn't have to make legal arguments he needs to put enough in the petition so that liberally construed he has stated a claim and in this case it is it is everybody that was in the area and it interviewed more people i'm sure one of them would have said that i want to shoot  do but she was not given enough information for her to make that evaluation based on her expertise and the information she had so there was an understanding that of course necessary because the affirmative defense was insanity of the time of the defense that that was a question that needed to be answered and information evidence needed to be provided a sudep question in order to support the he was not given sufficient information to how much me how much how much concession did the state's going to make the case like this where we got a woman with a knife and she asked and this guy's and he did i mean he's not a very in this case the prejudice prong is met on two fronts you're on i argued that the president did not need to be met in this case under crime because the the state's case was not meaningfully challenge in fact the actions taken by counsel made it easier for the state to prove its case that channel the disputes in the case into  the present defendants oh on the other hand he may have been willing to bargain to a prison term by just reducing the sentence ten or fifteen years were he would be released in his late fifty's or early sixty's and still dr hamlin didn't make a mistake so originally the defense was talking to doctors lutes doctors zoot did interviews and testing and issued a report the report that first doctors only examined for fitness after the fitness evaluation came back from doctors or defense counsel make clear that counsel also wanted the sanity evaluation so then the sanity testing was done by doctors do doctors use or import the report says i want a pet scan i want a neuro psychological testing i can't issue meaning without this brain scan and this neuropsychological testing so then doctors who testifies even in court saying i think that if i got defendant was saying so the defense actually used that as a strategy to say look this doctor thinks there's this kind of impairment this doctor finds a function of this ability so in this case they were  real that was a problem with the brain that maybe he should be able to read back but that probably would have affected us and we have the time we have done so as far as that record go was it's just because know that dr zoot said that she didn't have the expertise neither do the neuropsychological testing so i don't know where the overlap is in their in their ability to issue opinions there are no furthe the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime why the counsel and not find an expert ok doctor how and provide an opinion as to his current state which obviously did nothing to advance the affirmative defense in this case just in short defense counsel did not do what he needed to do to support the affirmative defense in this case because there was no affirmative defense he should have pled that the fine that if there was an it never got to that point there was no strategy in this case the strategy that amounted to a concession of guilt for the defendant was not defense so because