mandated by two dollars to five dollars or d the only question that matter is whether the state court decision is so obviously wrong so it would be in the off the possibility for fair minded disagreement in this case the district court rather than a supreme court recently reminded the engine detail that whether thung jurors might agree with the district court decision is not the is not the review not the standard review and not the issue the question that and the relevant injured is whether  or harmful in light of the can in light of the information it contains revert was warranted in this case because this recording gages in exactly the type of analysis that the us supreme court has warned against it was not objective l  reasonable to screen from the jury's consideration a report containing substantial detrimental harmful information nor was there a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the report or dr pigg leading been presented why doesn't that information and incarceration in order for his risk of being violent in the future to decrease to the extent the december quarter believes it believes was necessary for the jury to hear the about a supreme court look at what focusing on the porsche's of the experts before that the uncle did not testify to and could not have testified to and that really is information on the research that impacts somebody didn't see any mention of that in the state courts ruling so my question to you is that doesn't that present a qualitative difference no your honor although it does provide some to report with sort of the quintessential example of a double edged sword it provided extensive information regarding a psychological assessment in history but it also provided an opportunity for very damaging cross examination offenses that dr paganini look to in discussing what psychological factor impacted mr lopez and the actions he took later and with that throughout his life that i believe even though that information was not contained was not presented to the jury it was not unreasonable it was not objectively unreasonable to screen the jury from that information into that in your hon and looking at the report there are additional considerations that i believe supported by the support reversal in this matter one of the one of the pieces of information that mr lopez jews dr pigg leaning is a statement that an uncle the very person who testified in his in order to him beat him after one of the incident so with his helpful bringing in and that was that the record of the king fifty sit with counsel bringing in the uncles and some eye mr lopez and provided provided a human view of him and his and his troubled childhood in history that ran the risk of undermining the ultimate goal of what the penalty hearing risk of bringing in an expert whose opinion contradicted the jury's already read them to vision and so to the large extent this report could have done just as much harm as the good and i believe the problem here is  need to look at this through the highly deferential review mandated by sixty five for this was not so beyond the possibility of fair minded disagreement for the news out of supreme court to review dr pigg leaning has found with a plethora of medical and psychiatric evidence that the frontal lobe the impulse control is not fully developed and many people until age twenty five and so one of the said here's the thing this is no surprise that this happened now but as his brain develops and the research shows that by the time he's sixty years old  his his propensity for violence goes way way down and so that was a that's a critical thing the future dangerousness piece of this is critical it's critical because there's no that dr billy was going to say that his future propensity for violence was extremely high as simply not true that's not what the report said and obviously the expert could explained not in more detail on the stand so if i see that my times is running low so to put it in the no fair minded just agree that common sense which is what the state are reminded on that this is that the expert's report was just common sense so common sense cannot be the substitute for the opinion of an experienced mental health professional i think no fair mind that the risk of violence would substantially decrease over time and in that import that language that i would point your honour's to in in finding that there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome the jury had heard from the probation officer that mr lopez was involved in the prison riot when he was that a juvenile facility and that he was one of the ringleader so in addition to that which the jury also already knew this report contained a multitude of admissions to un charges acts that he committed while in prison those included changing another in need an act for which he was never found it included gang banging and he admitted to acting as a soldier in the prison gangs are prepared leni state that he has to adjust to prison this report and the presentation thereof ran the risk of exacerbating what the district court looked at as the information the jury already had they had already concluded he was violent and therefore what was there to lose and respectfully that is only an appropriate inclusion when looking at this in the context the hindsight with hindsight we can say yes he had nothing to lose because people really got life without parole but in the context of the trial at the time it would not object leon reasonable to prevent the jury from burning the conclusion they already had about the defendant your honor we respectfully request that you reverse the district court decision thank you both for your arguments today the case just argued be submitted for a decision and will proceed to the