good afternoon where we are here on an appeal from the nile of a petition for writ of habeas corpus by death row inmate and before we begin i'd like to welcome judge mori to the eleventh circuit judge from a mori is on the district court in japan and he's here pursuant to an judicial exchange program and came all the way from japan and sitting in no and various judicial proceedings so judge welcome to atlanta and welcome to the eleventh circuit nor cope with the consequences of being sexually assaulted because there were no caring adults available to him the other children in the home beat him up tormented tim the other children at school which is normally a safe place for sexually assaulted children also bullied and teased him as the state court found he was chased home from school by those bullies every day as one expert observed for seven year old scotty morrow there was no refuge can i ask you a you know the petitioner or his family members don't mention that's the language in the cases don't mention the sexual abuse than the lawyer can't be found and effective for having failed to investigate it well a couple of things though it's parse that out a little bit the client didn't deny it which is the case in some of those cases what the judge supreme court finds is that he didn't reveal it the state there's clear testimony in this record that if that very expert the trauma expert the trial counsel had retained had been given the information that adequate background investigation would have uncovered that expert would have gotten the evidence of sexual abuse mr morrow was not actively denying or covering up that abuse well but less so that's fine i'm sorry well that's loud so but the cases i mean so just to read you from stuart i mean it says you know when a petition or a family member the petitioner director's lawyer to talk to does not mention a history of physical abuse the lawyer is not in effect a for failing to discover it so it's not about active denial is just did he mention it or didn't a couple of things this this family and this client mentioned violence and instability and abuse over and over and over again and trial counsel did not explore the full extent of it as to the sexual abuse i think that you bringing up the wiggins case is particularly instructive here in that case where you have weakened self disclosure to social worker who's retained by post conviction counsel of multiple instances of sexual violence in his childhood wigan's is that the evidence presented at trial is that we can see as a serial liar that he's lied about his criminal history he has lied about his aspects of his crime and yet the u s supreme court says that evidence is powerful evidence of in mitigation even with the credibility problems that wigan's has that self disclosure and moreover that trial counsel was a reasonable and deficient in failing to on the basis of the minimal red flags they had in front of them failing to follow up to get to the point of that disclosure our case tracks that pretty precisely but if you got beyond i mean i guess stuart if you've gotten beyond stuart that says where he fails who are either here or one of his family members fails to mention the abuse that you think is the linchpin here which is the sexual abuse then the council can't be deemed ineffective for having failed to investigate it and then further here at least the georgia supreme court at least to me seems to have said that there was  he was asked and must have said no and isn't that a twenty to fifty four econ of finding that we have to to defer there's a couple different issues here one being the district court orders finding that mr walker testified that he would have asked and probably gotten a no the georgia supreme court decision just says he did not reveal it well is that right so so the the the quote i'm reading out of my notes says however we note that mauro never reported any such rapes pretrial to his counsel or to the mental health experts who questioned him about his background including his sexual history i got so they asked him he said no that reference i believe is to dr davis who did the early screening for competency an i q dr davis's report includes to this council or to the mental health experts or to the mental health experts right so i asked the mental health experts they talk about his sexual history with women in other words his adult sexual history and there's some information in dr davis report where he's talking about his history of relationships with women which is particularly salient here there's no evidence that dr davis asked him specifically where you sexually abused dr buchanan says no i didn't explore that with him but i would have if i had known anything about his history particularly some of these markers of sexual abuse were it what about the superior court orders that abuts county or read the opinion judge of the judge seems to suggest that there may have been some think he uses the word red flags with respect to the abuse that took place in new york and new jersey there were some will absolutely there are things here that reasonable counsel would have inquired further about inquiring further about those things may not have led to some other witness revealing the sexual abuse because no one else was was privy to the information about the sexual abuse but mr morrow and his assailant but it would have led to a lot of other information that would have allowed the mental health expert to get there and in fact the unrebutted testimony of the mental health expert is i would have gotten there he wasn't deliberately hiding anything he just had no insight he was emotionally completely shut down he was overwhelmed with remorse and shame about the crime and so he was difficult to draw out but he was not uncooperative and if i had really known what to explore and the timeframe around which to explore it i would have gotten there right now as to the red flags about their lives in the new york and new jersey area certainly they had many there is trial testimony that at some point one of the mothers boyfriends is coming after her and scottie has to mr morrow has to defend her with a baseball bat and that the man laps at him trial counsel doesn't know so much is that man's name they didn't ask did this boyfriend live with you how long did your mother date him where they married what was he like and most essentially was he ever violent to anyone else including mr morrow none of those questions get asked those are pretty basic questions that once you hear about another violent man in this family life how much can we take into consideration the superior court's decision or it was pretty long and thorough and comprehensive opinion how much of that can we take into consideration when we have the georgia supreme court's decision which pretty much just contradicts every unsupported by the evidence everything that's a finding of fact in that order is in front of this court undisturbed and supported by the evidence that i remember the correctly and please feel free to correct me if i've got this wrong but the georgia supreme court says something like we're adopting the findings of fact except where we conclude to the contrary or something like that they never conclude to the contrary they do and so far as their conclusions would be it was no ineffectiveness in a assistance of coun concluding that i'm going to try to counsel do it was nothing to georgia supreme court it is clearly established federal law i don't understand i'm saying that what the georgia supreme court did was unreasonably applied the federal law to the fact that's where it parted ways with the superior court is in its findings with respect to the way the law applied it adopted for instance what this if you're put found the trial counsel did and did not do it adopted what the trial court at least on the face of the the order with the trial court i said it was the mitigation of it so can i so about a couple of what seem to me to be factual assertions at least in the georgia supreme court's decision you can tell me whether you agree or disagree with you so one trial counsel met repeatedly with morrow his mother and his sister are true the superior court says that he did repeat they did meet with them repeatedly but most of that contact was non substantive updates about the status of the case ok so to counsel discussed moros childhood background with them extensively true this is what the georgia supreme court this case doesn't turn on whether it w extensive or not they discussed his background with them you know whether or not you could call it extensive when they don't know what happened during the thirteen year period in the client's life is up for debate what is not up for debate is whether or not that is a proper place to stop percent to strickland ok so then the third and i think for the most the most pointed going back to a question i asked you earlier morrow presented evidence in the he suggesting that he had been raped by his cousin as a child however we know that morrow never reported any such rapes pretrial to counsel or to the mental health experts who questioned him about his background including his sexual history true found those rapes happened if the georgia supreme court says that not one of any twelve reasonable jurors would have been persuaded by the evidence of rapes that this period court finds happen based on the evidence in front of them that is an unreasonable application of wigan's porter strickland i guess my my point is not so much whether the rapes happened or didn't happen awful if they happened but whether a counsel was ineffective for having failed to find them and here the georgia supreme court says he the state habeas court found that they happened however we note the trial counsel discussed  this period of history of his history with morrow and his family and talk to them about the sexual history and he said nothing let me briefly go back to trial counsel talking to him about his sexual history and that quote from mr walker about i'm sure i would have asked about that at some point that piece of the testimony he's discussing his conversations with mrs balls and samantha the client sister and so if he had asked one of those two women they would not have known about this the sexual abuse so he says oh i'm sure that's something i would have asked about and probably probably gotten a no that's the quote from mr walker but more to your point what trial counsel didn't do was go collect the evidence that their experts needed reading his testimony that is the type of question that i'm sure i would have asked of his family or and probably gotten in but the testimony of is him talking with samantha and betty but that just a moment is probably got you know in any event the georgia supreme court says you know that you know that he didn't reveal it not that he was asked and failed to disclose and then even if that is so although i think frankly there's a debate there could be a debate about what the georgia supreme court actually concluded how does that get you beyond stuart callahan chandler williams all of these cases pre to say where he or his family members failed to mention you know that counsel can't be deemed ineffective i mean we can have a debate about whether he of whether you affirmatively rejected the suggestion that this happened i think the georgia supreme court maybe suggesting that he did but whether that's true or not our case law doesn't require so much our case law says did he mention it or didn't he and if he didn't t but trial counsel can be deemed ineffective for not asking the obvious follow up questions of mr maher and his family when they reveal that they're living in an unstable and violent conditions surrounded by people who are violent when they know that mom has a history of choosing unsavory and violent partners and bringing them into the home the idea that they didn't ask anything about their living situation in new york or new jersey or or identify a single other witness in new york or new jersey to give them that information is where the deficiency lies not it with mr morrow if the mental health expert had that information knew about his adjustment problems in the second grade knew his living conditions knew that he began wetting the bed suddenly as a seven year old with no prior history of that and then wet the bed thereafter for the remainder of his childhood the unreported testimony is that that mental health expert would have known to explore so sexual abuse and that he would have gotten it from mr morrow and we know that because that's precisely what happened in post conviction is that we armed properly qualified expert in trauma with the information we knew and said what do you think and he asked mr morrow about his time in that house in new york there is no reason to think that trial counsel would have proceeded the same what is an unreasonable as them not knowing about sexual abuse w factors here but i think more problematic is they don't give dr buchanan any sources they are by their own admission giving him a client who is emotionally shut down who can't talk about his own background or the crime whose is you know limited and has to be drawn out that's part of dr begins task is drawing out his emotionally and they give him no other source of information besides the client who they know is having these difficulties they don't have him talk to a single other witness they give him no other witness statements no single record about mr morrow's background no school records they give him only information about the crime it's amazing that dr buchanan got as far as he did you know it to say oh here kind of figure out my client oh and by the way i also counsel him to be a good witness in his own defense and you have you know a month to do it dr buchanan is first retained and does the initial testing in the intake interview on march twenty ninth it is not until may seventeenth that he gets a chance to dig in with this client his first substantive discussions with dr buchanan are in may seventeenth with a trial that starts the first monday in june even if dr buchanan had had found out some in fact  finds out that there's this other abusive boyfriend in new jersey trial counsel says you have two months do what you can like in the trial is coming and dr buchanan's testimony is i knew that we we needed more the trial lawyers knew that we needed more and if i had had more time i would have said i need his past history but that wasn't an option under the circumstances and that's unreasonable under stric can you i guess pivot to your prejudice point to explain to us how exactly this discovery this investigation or lack thereof prejudiced your client absolutely what's the sort of the theory of prejudice here what would it have done the case well what it would have done is given trial counsel the support for the theory they put forward you know just as in the ferral case trial counsel here explicitly raised for the jury th question looming over this entire case which is why did this happen we have this mountain of evidence that this is an otherwise nice affable guy that he's responsible but he has all of these great qualities so how was it that he was so provoked by these you know why did this happen that was what they flagged for the jury and yet didn't answer that question the notion that he was sexually assaulted as a seven year old and then from there moved into the home of the judge will grant that he was then moved into the home of someone who is beating him while he's  s supreme court says this kind of childhood has particular salience that's the supreme court's language particularly particular salience with respect to the defendant's treatment of a old so just so i understand i mean like how how exactly does that inform the jury's evaluation is that because it sort of feeds as you said the sort of snap theory so i guess here's the difficulty i have with that and i'm interested in what you have to say about it i mean there is a snap theory i suppose but then he did kill not just one person but two plus a half an attempted third there's evidence i think that he either reloaded or clear to chamonix gone he severed the wires of the house when he left that just doesn't sound like snapping to me well there are certainly aggravating circumstances in this case and once he was unhinged certainly more aggravation approved that in light of  the clearly established law doesn't necessarily preclude a finding of prejudice in fact the same finding of prejudice that it was made in porter is appropriate here in fact it was required here it was unreasonable to find anything else account of the crime which they they put him on the stand to explain the provocation at every turn the d a impeach what mr morrow said happened during the crime with evidence from their own crime scene examiner saying no the physical evidence shows that you had done this more aggravated thing not this less aggravated thing that you're saying that you've done this the evidence shows that ms was was seated at the table passively not standing up like you say remorse and shame did not come through everyone says that his cross examination was a disaster even dr buchanan and that all of the things they feared about mr morrow's emotional flat butts county say about that coming out thought the superior court said that had counsel retained a mental health expert who had knowledge about his background but mental health expert would have been able to explain why he appeared cold and remorseless when he testified is that in the record that is in the record d buchanan says i could have explained that to the jury i could have explained a long term pattern of emotional detachment because he just can't handle it and sexually abused children physically abused children learn very early on to dissociate when it becomes imbued and they trial that the state had argued that tonya woods was a stand it was seating instead of standing and that would have supported if they put up their own of petition to put up his new currency expert that would have supported their theory that she was instead standing but that wasn't a point of contention there at at it trial in fact latoya horne testified that miss woods fellow from the chair i don't think there was any specific testimony that she was seated or standing so that wasn't a real point of contention and whether she was standing or sitting she was unarmed and his forensic expert and say hey best does not prove that she did anything that was aggressive towards petitioner to cause him to pull his weapon and shoot her  regarding those woods him chasing her down the hallway and whether or not he actually took her head and slammed it into the door frame or whether or not he shot her in the hand as his they hate his expert testified and that bullet grazed off her head and went into the ceiling i mean again that's not mitigating and it doesn't support the theory that that what he said was true or not so i like to point that out to be clearly disagrees with your drugs you conduct at the evidence your disagrees with i agree judge wilson but i will say this that was all on a cold record there were no live witnesses regarding that particular information and the georgia supreme court then reviewed that information and said you know we're looking at it even assuming that their crime scene expert is telling the truth we still find that you haven't shown prejudice here can i ask you that i guess that the same series of questions that i asked your adversary about sort of factual assertions in the georgia supreme court's opinion and to what extent those are entitled to twenty to fifty four treatment so the first and i'll just you  rapes pretrial to his counsel or to the mental health experts who questioned him about his background including his sexual history are those twenty to fifty four statements i was absolutely yes they are i understand that the stated that it was adopting the findings of fact of the status court unless they were clearly erroneous now while the georgia supreme court didn't specifically say we found this to be clearly erroneous certainly in their findings it suggests that they did in this particular instance certainly yes truckie also did discuss with petitioner and his family his background and i know that it's been stated that dr bikini did not ask petitioner about the sexual abuse but i did not read dr became his testimony in that manner i read it in the manner that he stated well if i'd been able to confront him with a specific incident of him being sexually abused then maybe he would have told me but he did not state doctor would testify that he did not question petitioner about sexual abuse i guess one of the problems that with this case is when i read the georgia supreme court's opinion i see facts and that opinion that  inconsistent with facts determined by the superior court of butts county so if i go look at the record myself and i see that there's an unreasonable determination of the facts  fact yes i do believe that they make several are going quite freely on reasonable determination of fact i think one of the arguments was regarding the sexual abuse and in the georgia supreme court's opinion they state that you know petitioner only informed trial counsel did not inform trial counsel of the sexual abuse and this did not come out until state habeas and they explained in their opinion when they were looking at it under the result probability of a different outcome that the jury would not have given as much weight that information so they did a mix you know i think it was fact and law analysis there and they dispute that saying that there was evidence cooperated in the fact that he had wet the bed and he had trouble in school therefore they should have abide by the georgia supreme court should have abided by the state b s court credibility determination but the state the georgia supreme court did not state that it was not finding that it wasn't credible it just said it would not have given it the same amount of weight that petitioner was advocating for that was one of the instances i think they said was so that if and so far as of counsel questioning his client and family about that i don't think there is but i could be wrong there were several arguments that day and if that's true that that was asked then that's the end of that claim isn't it i would certainly agree that it is wrong and a deficient performance at that if the question was asked i agree in the theater owner and as far as i know there was a lot of mention regarding the red flags there actually the georgia supreme court made a finding i think a finding of fact and law regarding it to red flags and the two red flags were that he wet the bed when he was a child i think around the age of seven but there's no evidence in this record that petition or his fame lee told trial simply not correct the trial counsel ignored information from the years during oral childhood when he lived in new york and new jersey although we acknowledge that they were allowed heavily on morrow his mother and sister to provide information about that portion of morrow's life and then i go to the decision by the superior court of butts county and the spirit court of butts county judge their conduct and evidence you're hearing and he says there is no question that at the time of trial counsel was unaware of the rapes beatings and other developmental insults that petitioner suffered while living in the new york and new and satisfaction of destruction standard and so i guess what i'm struggling with is the georgia supreme court and superior court of butts county have completely  different versions of the record if i go to the record myself and look at the testimony and i see that the superior court of butts county correctly correctly states the record in the georgia supreme court does it i'm not required to give at the deference that drawers bring court emma because i can make a determination that there is a you know unreasonable determination of the facts yes judge wilson that is true can i speak to what the georgia supreme court found they said that trial counsel did not ignore his time in the northeast that is a fair assessment of the record there's no evidence that truck coun did not question petitioner his sister and his mother who both give almost all of the information that they're relying upon here regarding his background in state hey b s they did question him about that period to quickly can see something in the hypothetical the judge will send granted i want to make sure i understand the law in this area i thought that if the state trial a b s court made certain findings of fact based on a record and the state supreme court reversed the finding that what it a d p a requires us to do is to review the final decision it would be the decision of the georgia supreme court and if there is evidence to support that finding we have to do it and if that's not an unreasonable finding we have to defer to it even if we thought after looking at all the record we thought the record better supported the finding of of the state a g s trial court it's not its decision that we're really reviewing it's the final decision of the state supreme court and if there's if there's evidence to support it it's not an unreasonable finding we have to we have to defer to it is that not right that is absolutely correct and i was in articulate trying to get to that point to say that there was support in the record for the georgia supreme court's decision therefore it would it would have a d p a deference but if we look and we see there's no support for the georgia supreme court's farming's of them were not required to give the deference or were that is the standard if by clear and convincing spoke with petitioner and his family and they also hard to mental health experts the first dr davis they sent him a letter and it was a three page letter in it they said can you please tell us why petitioner committed th crime and it he does go through a social history so they did have an expert to go through the social history and in it and i know my oppose it kelso keep stating that petitioner didn't open up to the mental health experts but if you look at those if you look at reported dr davis and if you look at the testimony of dr buchanan at trial it's clear that he did open up to these experts about his background he was a closed off telling them absolutely nothing about what happened he did report from dr davis and there that report was sealed in the state did not have the trial but that that is in there it shows that dr canon yes he was hired two months before trial but at that time they had spent four years with petitioners mother and sister who knew all of his history and they were not giving them the type of information that suggested to counsel that they needed to go to the new york or new jersey area and look for more information to two months before trial when you're retained represent  there's no supreme court precedent that states that you any specific amount of time has to be given to the mental health expert in order to conduct a reasonable investigation and again dr b can and while and i know we look at the georgia supreme court's decision court but i think the record does support the georgia supreme court's opinion i haven't seen an instance here where where they have made a finding of fact or conclusion a law that wasn't supported by the record so can i ask you a quick question and i too hate to be sort of a one tri pony but this is the statement in the georgia supreme court's opinion that says in effect trial counsel asked the question where you sexually abused as a child and he said now is there to judge wilson's question is there support in the record for that we'll call it a finding i'm not accustomed to thinking of appellate courts making findings what we'll call it a finding is there support for that finding yes there is i think the testimony of the judge prior it directly supports that  that i just wanted to be clear that i mean that's what i thought you would say but that's that is the record support that for that specific finding yeah ok thanks for doing mandel and i go back again to the to the red flags there are only two there were only two red flags here it was the bedwetting which there's no evidence the trial counsel or the middle experts were told that secondly it was the fact that he had some behavioral problems in school however dr tissues mother both testified at trial that she had in the evaluated him he had a learning disability and he was in special education classes for that from i think i believe it was fourth tonight grade so they were aware that he had the behavior but that was explained by the fact that he was doing well in school because he had a learning disability so the only two red flags there aren't glaring red flags that a layperson is going to notice in order to say to them oh we need to go investigate further this line of  is not even identifiable at that point this line of evidence i think even if the score and i think if you look at the georgia supreme court's opinion and they say let's assume we think they did an adequate investigation but assume there was a deficiency here we still do not find prejudice and you can't say under supreme court precedent that's an unreasonable application of supreme court precedent or contrary to any supreme court precedent they keep analogizing their case to those of wigan's and pilla and porter those are extremely different they have to be exactly the same set of facts and you do not have that in this particular case you know one of the things i was struggling with is how that evidence would have come and so if if there was a failure on the part of troll counsel if there was ineffective assistance  how would the evidence that counsel should have discovered comer and as i understood it georgia supreme court says look you can't use an expert with the georgia supreme court is saying is that you know we're not going to let you just get up there and testify to hearsay in assume that everything you say is correct we're going to filter that through another you know because it is hearsay and say that well then we can't give it maybe as great a way decided at during the sentencing phase that petitioner would not testify because he had been his cross examination had been a disaster in the guilt that's correct and to get back to the prejudice analysis in this particular case when the georgia supreme court looked at the actual affidavits the evidence here of the abusive background they did not find it that compelling and i think when you actually look at the affidavits you can see why that is when you take away the exaggerations of he was beaten every day he was bullied every day which isn't borne out in the affidavits from the people who were in his life when you take all of that out and that dramatization it's not the level of abuse or neglect that  what you have is a single mother who worked three jobs and she they were never they never lacked clothing food or anything of that nature you know so his his background just wasn't as aggravated as those other cases  this case well truck also testified that they asked to shall we said we need to know the good and the bad they asked and they said they would have asked these questions i don't know which is why the georgia supreme court found that the questions were  yes so can you respond briefly when i was asking has been the question about sort of how exactly is it that this evidence would have been mitigating for prejudice purposes and i think she said you know it would have fed the theory that he snapped the sort of the underlying childhood abuse would have fed the theory of the trial theory that he snapped why doesn't that work i don't think it provides much of an explanation for his crimes first of all that fed the theory that he only believes petitioners versions of the crime it doesn't believe any of the evidence presented by the state that he abused this lady that he called her on the phone the day of the of the crime she told him to stay away that he came over that her son testified not once not twice but i think three times that he busted in and kicked in the door and the fact that missed the toy horn the surviving victim stated that only a few words were exchanged between him and miss wo immediately pulled out his weapon and he began shooting and he began shooting these women and he chased and down the hallway and he came back and shot them again at point blank range he goes outside he cuts the he cuts the wires and then he goes home he takes his clothes off he had them he takes his weapon he wipes all the fingerprints off and he hides that i don't see how the fact that he was abused ten years before provides much of an explanation for his crimes on that particular day i don't think that it fits into that first just briefly with regard to prejudice and the way in which the childhood evidence explains the crime the the trial expert gives complete testimony that's credited by the state habeas court about how this child had background explains his crime and maybe jurors reasonable jurors would have considered that but you don't have to believe that this childhood evidence explains his crime or that this childhood evidence is the reason that he snapped in order to find that it substantially mitigating reasonable jurors would understand that the rape of a seven year old that the repetitive beating of a child over the course of his life is substantially mitigating you they probably would have understood it intuitively even without the expert the expert carries the ball across the line but it's mitigating in its own right if the court doesn't have any more questions about the prejudiced piece i want to turn back to trial counsel's handling of the family because i think that our argument has been misapprehended a bit here both by the georgia supreme court and by respondent the bedwetting the school adjustment problems the other things that would have led dr buchanan to ask about sexual abuse and in a pointed way gotten the information are not the red flags that we are saying the trial counsel missed trial counsel had ample red flags from this family that they missed and they didn't follow up and get the information that would have to have the bedwetting the school adjustment and the other issues for instance they knew that their client had blackouts as a child they didn't explore any other medical symptomology they know he has blackouts and headaches they don't say today have any other developmental problems did he have any developmental delay they know that he moves around a lot once he gets to new jersey they don't say why are you moving around a lot and who are you living with they know that there's violence in the home over the course of the client life and they don't go find out the details of his life in new york or new jersey they just leave it blank mr brown else says we weren't even really looking in that direction meaning new york and new jersey so i want to be clear that we're not saying that the the bedwetting and things are the the red flags those are not it's trial counsel's failure to run with the information they had and relying exclusively soley on mrs bowles and samantha morrow is if they know that it's unreasonable because they know that mrs bowles is self conscious about her role in the outcome here that she's worried about the impact that the public surrounding this trial will have on her business that she wants everything to look ok and so she tends to minimize the impact of the bad things in their past they testified to that they know it they know she's not around because she's working three jobs and they know that samantha morrow is less than nine months older than their client so she's a child herself and yet they don't talk to a single other adult or family member who knew them while they were in new york or new jersey moreover they don't ask mrs bowles and or samantha the other with all of the questions or those witnesses the mother and  asking the obvious and relevant follow up questions of samantha morrow and mrs bowles and the reason they're not doing that is nobody on this trial team has the relevant skills that are knows how to identify and gather mitigation mr  career prosecutor mr walker has never tried a capital case to to a verdict he's been involved in one or two where the death notice was withdrawn or the client entered a plea he doesn't know he tells the trial court in september  hundred ninety five at the ex parte hearing on the motion for their funds that they need a social worker because he doesn't have the skills to get the medication he says there is simply a need in a case like this for somebody who is trained for all of one thousand nine hundred eight and for the first three months in one thousand nine hundred nine they do nothing they say that the reason we didn't get a social worker is because between the combination of what mr muggeridge was doing and what doing we thought we would cover it that way that didn't happen in till may of one thousand nine hundred ninety nine right before trial that explains nothing about why you didn't employ someone and somebody who knew to ask the right follow up questions would have gotten at the evidence of what mr marrs behavior and what his living circumstances were like in in new york and new jersey and once you get that information then you get all of it through your expert and that is what makes this case different to your point judge than the line of cases where trial counsel asks and gets a denial in those other cases a trial counsel is asking and getting information either indicates that all is well  or relatively unremarkable in the in the client's home or is visiting the places that the client lived in talking to the relatives and they say things were fine or they say i'm not talking to you or don't talk to this relative that is a different thing than where you have relatives who are not even being told because neither the investigator nor trial counsel has the relevant skills what constitutes the full scope of mitigating evidence you know even being told that who are trying their best and who are volunteering information that would lead any reasonable lawyer to keep going and in fact the sixth amendment requires it that's clearly established federal law do i recall and again correct me if i'm wrong i don't have the notes in front of me but the sister said when asked about the the period in new york it was pretty good during her direct testimony at the guilt phase of mr morrow's trial he says ok so you leave your abusive father and move to new jersey how is that and she says well pretty good and then she goes on to describe in a very general way where they lived that is not consistent with either her or mr morrow's earlier description of their living circumstances in new york or new jersey whether she thinks that they were pretty good or not an objective person hearing what they knew the little they knew about new jersey would not say oh it sounds pretty good and maybe it was pretty good for samantha that doesn't answer the question of what it was like for mr morrow and that's the relevant question if court has any further questions