to and do personal injury cases often i would consult an expert and then not put the expert on because i got what i wanted out of cross of the other side's expert sometimes i'd consult my expert and then not get a report from them so i didn't have to disclose them in discovery and the reason for all that was that if the jury thought my expert was a liar and then my case was good and if the jury thought the other side's expert was a liar good chance their case was doing so putting on an expert was dangerous in this case the fellow had already put on the experts even now to investigate he did the whole nine yards he put him on in the second trial and the jury didn't buy it so in the third trial he desperately tries something else and it's hard for me to see why it's not within a warrior's possible range of terrible flux one expert the child psychology expert oh big deal so in the in the next trial you go a new expert and while you're on the other side says you made aware they were experts and the lawyer spending in front of the jury that's what happened with the child psychology witness he faked his resume he had articles on the puppet that were never submitted for publication that he listed as having an author he had he had not done any work in the field three years disregard that kind of expert look at the medical expert the medical expert has virtually no experience w and yet he knew almost nothing about child sex abuse he had been active in the field he hadn't read any of the publications that were available to him he realized that there had been already heard that they've been developments in the field of diagnosing child sex with sex but he said i wasn't a part of it i didn't know anything about it these were witness specific flock just as a matter of fact you can look at what happened on the second trial and simply model those errors up after this trial we can't do  it in a second trial and it didn't work and i really didn't understand till just now that what your argument really was was not that it was stupid not to use experts it was that he should have found different experts just because the ones he used in the second  having trouble seeing why if there's a theory on which they could say the lawyer was reasonable that we can reverse the under twenty to fifty four standard well we have uncontroverted testimony from the first addiction hearing from an attorney exercise some judgment about whether we buy something like that we don't have to buy it just because you put on your stupid wounded lawyer and the government doesn't put on its rehabilitate and raise from the dead the wo nonspecific physical findings now that was a very important flaw in the people who live in the state's case and how does the state rationalize it away they have their medical experts say well that's nothing unusual half of all kinds of concluded that the problem with the expert that he used in the second trial was not necessarily their their pedigree or their experience or anything of that nature because when you look at the qualifications they were qualified to testify as experts the problem was they couldn't provide any testimony that tie in with the facts of this case now mr morrow had the opportunity to watch the state's experts the first time around in the victim in this case was an eight year old girl testified under oath at great length with both the second trial and ultimately at the third trial so he was aware that trying to put on a case arguing that this child had been coached and intimidated and c they're susceptible to this sort of thing it's cetera et cetera but the fact is that that expert quinn connect up that general opinion with the particular facts of this case does not suggest he had the wrong experts now i think if you have the wrong facts is the problem or kind of obvious there now i would disagree with you your honor because it's very important to point out that it was never any suggestion in this case of the mother had any motivation any motivation in this case to falsely accuse there's no evidence in this case that the child had any motivation this was an amicable divorce they were they had joint custody joint visitation there was never any dispute about the visitation there was never any problem might that the mother took the child in for observation because the child was having behavioral problems that were not specific to any sort of sexual abuse so let me go back into where i was a few minutes ago if i remember the record correctly  communicating to the lawyer and told the lawyer that the experts had fallen apart as a direct with i believe these experts and maybe indicated why i didn't see anywhere in the record where the communication had something resume i don't recall that that was at all significant if in fact the record shows i mean you don't recall that that was all significant didn't happen i think there may have been some discrepancy about his resume but i don't think that there was any significant well i think it was a little bit of both because evidently the expert had misunderstood the facts and so the lawyer misled the expert and the expert craft well it could well be on the field the expert misunderstood the facts through no fault of the  items from our moral system are said you know i gave it a shot the problem was that these experts the problem the problem was that the expert opinion he was trying to get and couldn't be matched with the facts in this case because there was not quite there was harassing i mean you can read through those thirty seven page declaration that it's all right that sounds all very good but the fact is trying to tie again to the actual facts of this case is very difficult because there is nothing to suggest really that these people the problem little unusual to me and she was saying i wonder if i want to fight my father's penis you know it's so you have that sort of thing that suggests to the counselor that there may be some underlying hostility that that is that is prompting the child to to be acting out in so it was a very patient very methodical stepping through the process and eventually the child did disclose and the child who was eight years old got on the stand in trial and testified there are minor in consistencies are just money to be sure consulted with experts to go beyond and to get additional experts this court never suggested that there is a constitutionally required thing for a council to do under strickland standard and in what happened at the first trial anything he does at the penalty phase is tactical and therefore we can't look at six thirty then by that you have to learn from what happened at the first trial i missed the mark had to learn from what happened at the for at this