no court can order a perfect trial and that we can't have perfect representation and that we can't have perfect juries and i and some of the tenor of the prosecution's brief is that that's what i'm asking this court to do and i'm i'm not i'm asking this court for a fair trial where reasonable investigation has been done and a jury is not willfully disobey orders of the court and that's my way of introduction that the failure to investigate meant that the way that the case was tried was tried in a vacuum absent information mr lowell had made the decision to try this case of reasonable doubt they don't mention the confession pardon me i'm sorry ok and all that is that the trial judge says well you know tried as reasonable doubt talking about there's no d n a in a gun that's a strategic decision and yet how do you get past the fact that mrs skinner told the first responders i shot him he shouldn't come in here he she was hysterical she's upset she was all these things and now you know that mr rock in this car was still running at the time that the first responders got there and that's an can't ask for a perfect trial you can't ask for perfect investigation either and one of the questions my students ask me when we're doing the trial of a case that we do is where do we stop professor you know where we are where we've done enough and that's a kind of a really target it's not clear when you've done enough but it's pretty clear when you haven't done enough and we haven't done enough is to do the basics which is to give you the basic witnesses eyewitnesses the crim eyewitnesses to the you know immediate aftermath of the crime these are basic things that that should not be news to anybody and that was knocked down in this case the fact that the state talks about that you know t lawyer did an opening statement with a theory that a closing statement with the theory is beside the point because the theory was based upon a lack of information and that doesn't it doesn't matter that he dismiss having been granted this fact that the jurors said that they considered the fact that mr skinner didn't testify and didn't present evidence as evidence of guilt in now have second thoughts on all those other kinds of things that the courts tell us not to do right and the line between when the jury is considering something that they've been told not to consider directly where is that are and that's a that's a difficult question our estimation this jury crossed that line because they're considered as evidence something that present evidence it would be the same as if they had considered  wearing as evidence that she was guilty or that they had considered armed the fact that it was really as a reason to focus it is something they thought of themselves that is they didn't go out and do an investigation that would be a clear case obviously correct it and it will come as no shock to you listen to me i've been around the snow for forty three years that there are lots of defense attorneys who believe that it's a fairly routine matter for well he should be testifying i would want to testify if i were in his position the fact that this is a fairly routine concern of the french counsel experience f counsel why wouldn't we be opening up a routine jury inquisition every time there's a jury verdict in a defendant has an testified well by god dead we're going to find out whether some jurors thought i understand what your concern is but this is this is a this is a different matter i believe and and absent any kind of evidentiary hearing where this could be aired and you know that was discussed exactly how it was discussed what impact it had on the jurors could and i understand exactly what you're saying what i'm saying to you here is that the question for the sport is whether this kind of consideration within the jury room can be is a matter that is  it would be difficult to if that was my only claim your honor to argue that this is sufficient practice that the basis will affect it all if you have jurors who weren't certain if she fired the gun i suppose it would have a big effect because there was a mark on her at this evidence rehearing postcondition hearing act is not for the purpose of holding an inquiry into what was actually said in your room and whether it would be extraneous or not it's a defense burden show that there was violation constitutional right improper if it involves the specific facts of either the defendant or the crime issue so if the widger was for example and i witness to the crime and knew what happened that might be considering extremists as well but not apply specifically to the facts of the case so someone who knows what a particular drug does from their own pharmacy training and that sickly drug is an issue in the case that's not its extremes that's just simply even expert knowledge and specialized knowledge not about the particular facts case however they are or are used in order to evaluate the evidence actually in a trial so in the case for example probably when they knowledge or expertise is used to evaluate the evidence to trial it's not strange and that seems to be from the interview notes no more than what happened in this case of witness to who used to existing knowledge about fire to evaluate the evidence that they heard in the courtroom and that is what we expect yours to do which is to bring your life experiences in order to decide case and so tanneries it's a case that explains the rationale for this rule gro needs for finality and because there are other protections like dealing with the violation of the courts struck instructions here is type a case that recognizes the protection of jurors who contemporaneously report in this kind of your testimony about jurors considering the defendants decide decision not to testify at trial so so there is no bar to point the rule it's not unconstitutional and the rule does bar the evidence in this particular case might say something there was a reference to factor in their decision however if the prosecution percents a compelling case heals and the defendant has nothing to say jurors are actually going to think that the defendant spoke to rebut the prosecution not what these transcripts these interview notes show that they were actually relying on the inference of conscious consciousness of guilt for example that the factor of decision analysis made might mean something different we don't really know not cite any case the trade chandler to show that when an objective plea reasonable decision was reached even in the absence of an adequate investigation the defendant sixth amendment right would require and finding a deficient representation most reasonable inference they think that he left the car running simply to keep it warm for his daughter who was expecting to receive and if it turns out for example from jennifer's nine one one call that they were going to tell him that sure that city could not go because she w affected in such a manner and if you start inside if you and if the allegation would be that he had pushed her at that point it's not going to entitle them to a defense of cloning instruction and their and their right to be some evidence as to every element  even to get an instruction let alone to show that there would have been and reasonable probability that she might have been acquitted had that fact been known and so the fact that that somehow this choices are being made in a vacuum the question is council can make them be objectively reasonable decision even without enough information the focus is on the reasonableness cision actually reach not on the process of reaching out station so it's even possible more investigation in many cases can confirm the decision that council actually reached so there is no per se rule that accounts fails to make enough investigation in order to make trial tactical type decisions does not absolve them of the defense of her sponsibility of showing that there wasn't so i just want to point that out regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel and the failure to investigate claims a failure to investigate is only reasonable if there was worries tell you not to go down a particular path however there is a big elephant in the world that the trial judge didn't talk about and that is you know that i mentioned  my opponent here and that is actually surely skinner did testify she sat i shot him is he dead he should there come in here she was bleeding this case should have been in the opening statement of this case should have been there was a contentious divorce here and a contentious custody battle and mr watkins had had enough pushed his way into know nothing which you know i went in there with a camera the next day but anyway whatever and you know and that her physical condition you know all these things tend to support this and because for the reasons i i talked about before and so i said i want to close the way that i have which is to say i understand that this court cannot demand a perfect trial but we are talking literally about the rest