unfortunate mental illness is a young man who has been consistently diagnosed as suffering from paranoid delusions however because the trial counsel failed to undertake any investigation into mr wise's obvious mental illness this information the fact that mr weiss suffers from mental illness was never explained to the jury and in fact because no explanation was offered to the jury the prosecutor was able to seize on this idea that mr wise view the world as full of wolves will prove that he had a motive to injure the victim in this case well it wasn't his w component ask the jury to as much as they can stand in the shoes of the defendant and understand his perceptions specifically this perception i thought it was objective reasonableness from the standpoint of the third person observe must be reasonable and let me give you some examples of that i think that comes up and two situations fall through the situation where p t s d or battered women's syndrome is used to support self defense claim and also in the better child syndrome type of situations in those situations what those involved like what could have been presented in this case is the testimony regarding  psychological symptom or psychological condition and its symptoms the hallmark of which in p t s d is hyper vigilance and a response that an objective person may not have made to that situation in the classic p t s d situation is objective really it doesn't look like the person is in danger of great bodily harm but based on their experiences and based on their psychological condition  great bodily harm and washington has always allowed in fact it's been a leader in allowing the use of psychological syndromes like battered child syndrome to support the self defense clan but i'm confused havey is petition and that prostate petition he trained his claim rather broadly argued that trial counsel has failed to investigate and discover his mental health history and has failed to put on a mental was diminished capacity but in the objections to the second report recommendation and district court counsel indicated that in addition to considering this evidence for diminished capacities a court needed to consider  unreasonable application of supreme court precedent the plain before this court has evolved somewhat from what was litigated in the district court in answer to your honor's question  record or the clerks record one twelve what's the objections to the report recommendation second report recommendation there was a essentially a one paragraph perhaps two paragraph argument regarding the failure of counsel to support the claim of self defense with national health evidence but that was a secondary claim and i will and i would submit it's a very minor claim they did not present any real evidence in support of that claim the district court but what's most important is that the petitioner in state court failed to present any evidence at all to support his claims and the state court specifically held in denying the state court collateral challenge that he had failed to present any proof to show either unreasonably deficient for representation or prejudice from counsel's alleged errors because petitioner failed to present the self defense standard there is a subjective and objective standard in the objective standard is what would a reasonable person do in light of the facts that were presented to the defendant what force without reasonable person is used in the mere fact that a person has a mental illness is not sufficient the state supreme court in state versus james one twenty one washington at two forty in this case was cited by petitioner the court said testimony that the defendant suffers from battered child syndrome standing alone does not assure the defendant's belief in them in a heartless reasonable in this case even if state court counsel had presented mental health evidence in support of the claim of self defense the defense would have failed because there was no testimony or evidence showing that the defendant's evidence is because the lawyer didn't put it in and that's what they really challenging is the money to develop this point with the i understand your honor but they also failed in federal court to develop that there is no expert testimony showing that mr wise's mental condition affected either his perception of the events or the reasonableness of his actions the only expert to actually testify in federal court was the state's expert dr harris mr wise had an expert of pointed to the system in federal court he was not called to testify so dr harris who was called in response to my questioning in his excerpts of the record ten at pages twenty one to twenty two said no he had a doctor or dr harris that mr wise had a good memory of the advance which shows the reality based recollection and dr harris said that mr wise was not hallucinating and he was not delusional at the time of the crime so the claim of paranoid delusions simply fails because there's no expert testimony to support that assertion even under the subjective prong of the self defense claim the mental health defense fails because there's no expert testimony to show that and state versus chains inside of vs merkle the case decided by petition there was an expert testimony actually presented to support and show how the mental condition affected the defendant's ability to perceive advance and somehow saw imminent harm that another person may not have presumed to have acted in a competent manner he submitted a declaration explaining why he did what he did that x that declaration is that clear to record twenty nine he said that in his experience that he was a very experienced counsel and his experience that all healthy fences in self defense do not mix well with trial he thought based on what the defendant had told him in this creates a problem vesta gaging that they had a very strong case for self defen and he thought that until the defendant changed his story during the examination at trial and the defendant said essentially after the first encounter i left the area i stayed away for a little bit i went back and i purposely moved the victim's trash can essentially knowing that that was going to possible is your response by the victim and under that scenario under the aggressor instruction under washington law in the aggression of structure and excuse me instruction to set forth that first record twelve exhibit fifteen the if a person absent an intentional manner knowing that it might invoke a belligerent response which nessa tate's or or creates then the subsidies for the use of force you cannot claim self defense though mr wise's own testimony essentially made him the because it involved a self defense claim which could have been which which was not bolstered by mental health testimony the use of mental health testimony to allow a jury to stand in the shoes of the defendant to should put itself in the shoes of the defendant to determine reasonable ness from all the surrounding facts and the circumstances as they have here to the defendant and in state versus change for the better child case the court says only by learning of the defendant's perceptions and circumstances surrounding the act is the diff is the jury able to make the critical determination of what degree of force a reasonable person in the same situation seen what the defendant sees and knowing what she knows with then be able to assess what is necessary and that's what was absent in this particular case any evidence to allow the jury to stand in the shoes of mr wise and to stand in those shoes and understand his mental illness how it affected his perception and why ultimately his use of force was reasonable and necessary thank you counsel your time has expired the case just argued will be