said no court has ever looked at all of the facts regarding the death sentence imposed in this case even the fact that the death sentence was sought initially was made without an individualized determination based only on the policy of the count attorney's office both prosecutors have said in addition to the original defense attorney that nobody viewed this as a death penalty case and no one acted accordingly counsel with respect as you as your office are well aware w when you look at all of the circumstances which is what is required by strickland and wigan's the clearly established federal law governing ineffectiveness claim i think it is because what richter requires is that no fair minded jurist could find that what the state court's ruling anything other than objectively and reasonable and in this case the sentencing court was objectively unreasonable but forgive me or maybe i'm understand what you were saying before i thought your point was that the the decision that was made to treat this as a death penalty case as opposed to life without possibility of parole was basically a rational decision that's that's not that's not the attorney's issue is it no i'm sorry your hon this case is the clearest i have seen of objective leon reasonable analysis in on an ineffectiveness claim the court would not allow factual development he used an improper test in order to even allow mr white to develop the facts in support of his claims he made findings regarding deficient performance that were not supported by mr mcveigh's testimony mr mcveigh did not testify that his failure to investigate or obtain records was the product of strategy that that's not in his testimony from the hearing yet the trial court without any citation or evidence found that he was not deficient because his decision to focus solely on the issue of the fact that the prosecutor did not believe this was a death penalty case was that that that was a reasonable mitigation strategy and that is completely completely opposite to all of the controlling clearly established federal law here it's an interesting concept and i think ever heard that advocated before i understand your other points about mitigation probably agree with them but the the idea that the internal deliberations in the prosecutor's office about whether to treat this is a death penalty case is opposed to a life  t possibility of parole never heard of a case like that can you cite me any case for that has been found to be a devil mitigating effect your honor i think there are cases in arizona that have found similar issues i law investigating law enforcement officers that death was not the appropriate sentence for mr guy i guess was admissible as mitigation and there isn't a supreme court in this case also found that the court should have considered the prosecutor's opinions regarding the death penalty in as mitigation that they weren't irrelevant that was in the second direct appeal opinion to mr white's case i'm speaking of the second opinion in mr white's case that the majority of the justices on the arizona supreme court found that there was no error can you talk about that analysis and that in particular the prejudice and alison yes your honor because they've made that determination now we've got another layer of deference on top of it coming here to this court factors that mr mcveigh presented including the opinion of the prosecutor the fact that the victim in this case would not have died absent medical malpractise and mr white's own testimony about his ability to be rehabilitated so that what those were the only additional factors that were before the arizona supreme court at the time of the second direct appeal it wasn't until the second p c r proceeding where there was the hearing that mr white finally had somebody who investigated and tried to find out the mitigating evidence that's present in this case prior to that no one had ever made any attempt to do so so it was not until that proceeding that it was available and so the arizona supreme court in the second direct appeal could not have considered it  again aggravation pact factor being very compelling yes they did your honor but i also would point to the fact that in the post conviction proceeding after the first direct appeal the first direct appeal opinion mr lockwood in addition to admitting his ineffectiveness in other areas specifically admitted his ineffectiveness regarding the aggravation phase and when the judge granted a resentencing in that case it included a retrial of the aggravation of the aggravating factor the state in fact chose not to present any evidence in support of it but there still were things that could have been argued and should have been argued to the trial court that no one has ever no state court has ever looked at based on either the ineffectiveness of mr lockwood or the ineffectiveness of mr mcveigh at that time the trial court that not how before it any kind of reasoned argument against the imposition of that aggravating factor so you're saying i'm sorry  mcveigh filled the below the objective standard of reasonable nuss the main reason being because we look at his his record you know he won the case you know basically on the prosecutors testimony correct yes and he presents evidence of mark or tries to argue behavior or some other things so we're looking at aren't we are you tell me  enough yes i think so and one said some great example is the case that the court ordered us to be ready to address the browning vs baker case because that case is a very clear application of what we've argued in the brief that it is absolutely clear that counsel cannot make a decision to focus on one mitigation strategy when they are unaware of the other things that are available that you cannot endure investigation into you know the two you actually conducted one but you cannot make a reasonable decision to stop investigating without doing at least some investigating and i think in this case there are quite a few things that he could easily have done for example if he would have just asked for the arabs arizona department of corrections records he would have discovered not only the mental illness diagnoses the schizophrenia all of the huge variety of delusional letters is the letters he sent to senator mccain to governor politician at the time the president those are all available in the just in of mental health illness and then what would he have done he could have not only presented those records indicating the fact that one important part is that their department of corrections staff became aware of these symptoms almost immediately after mr white was transported to following the death sentence so that would certainly have been an indication that between that and the hyperthyroidism that mr white was also treated for at the jail in between the trial and the sentencing in this case that those were factors that were affecting mr white at the time of the crime here if you think that they were effect they would have found that they were affecting him at the time of the crime even though the judge hancock said in his view and you know we have to look at the record here and he had this case from beginning to the and and was probably more familiar with it than than anybody short of maybe the prosecutors are i mean probably arguably more he in his  orders he said that it was hit that mr white's conduct was calculated and rational how would that have changed anything because your honor i think he could make those statements because of the fact that no attorney had ever conducted the mitigation investigation and presented it to him and fact when you look back at how much of the conduct that was that issue in the trial it can certainly be informed most significantly by both the mental health diagnoses and the hyperthyroidism because both of those issues caused paranoia lack of impulse control certainly things that would have contributed to the crime here but in addition cite the different facts that the judge cited in support of his finding regarding that were simply they weren't supported by the evidence for example one one in fact that the court pointed to several times was that mr white had indicated to hit one of his wives that he was going to use the money to go to medical school had anybody ever gotten his records and looked into that i mean mr white at the time of this crime was thirty six years old had not graduated from high school in fact had only not even finished the tenth grade had failed numerous grades throughout that mean there no possible way that he could have used that money to go to medical school that's evidence of delusional thinking that i mean the amount of work that it would take to get him to medical school from that point is almost unfathomable now so i want to follow up on judg sounds to me like you're arguing not just about the penalty phase but the guilt phase or use are you arguing that we're supposed to do the guilt that is absolutely not that would be regarded aggravating factor ok and so that you are limiting yourself to the penalty phase yes absolutely ok yes we'll just have cock i'm sorry then goes on to say though you know why i'm i'm aware that now that mean in the end he says i'm aware now that there were these and dish i think  a difference to me and your honor i believe that those are reasonable determinations of fact based on the fact that he would not allow mr white to develop that mitigation and explain to the court and develop the record as to how those mitigating factors would then effect mr white at the time of the crime and how it might have changed the outcome here and you know pinetti is very clear as an example of a case that says a state court cannot restrict the fact finding procedures in state court and  then be unreviewable later i mean that was a case where the united states supreme court said that because they had not given him at the very last time that you were in state court court p c r proceedings that was before the same judge yes and so by that time  gation expert had basically fully investigated and done for that second p c r proceeding what you were saying with facial have done in the first proceeding right some of it your honor only some of it all right so what you are saying should have been presented i don't think it would overwhelm the culinary gain aggravating factor that i found in the first instance in other words saying even taking into account all of this medication evidence that's been developed it wouldn't have resulted in a different sentence and so how what do we do with that the factual findings made on the last round i that judge those factual findings are tainted by the fact that w there was a mitigation specialist appointed to this case mr roman certainly did a very of the luminance amount of of work here and presented a lot of exhibits but if you look through his affidavit that's attached the p c r petition he was very clear that he's not a mental health expert he's not a medical doctor he could gather records and what his job is is to then inform the attorney about what indications were valid from the records and then proceed further by gathering expert e here because the court would not allow any x expert evidence to be developed there was nobody who could put that information together or explain how this evidence affected mr white and i think that's clearly illustrated when you look at the transcript of the testimony by mr roman during that second evidentiary hearing because the judge was very clear throughout mr roman's testimony that he could not opine either on diagnoses or on how whatever the mitigating factor might be had affected  white he repeatedly said that that was not mr romans with in his expert capacity the state objected any time that he did try to draw a conclusion so really again he said i had evidence of that you know likely he was hyperthyroid at the time of the crime that i have found indications that he's mentally ill i found indications of his substance abuse but none of that there was no evidence in the record because of the judge's refusal to allow the development there was no evidence explaining either confirming it is it your position that the judge in this case having had a taste from the mitigation expert that there was a possibility of mental illness declined to something that the judge should take into consideration and something like this i think practically of course that something that a judge takes into consideration in this case i don't think that that could have been the basis i mean first of all there's nothing in the record to indicate not this i'm i'm trying to understand i'm trying to cabin this in my mind based on what you're arguing i get your i'm understanding you to say basically that the judge had an absolute obligation to fund whatever additional duty to fund any and every expert requested by the defense that that's not the standard and it certainly should be what is that it would be anything that's reasonably supported by the evidence or to develop something that's relevant and relevance is the only test that you can use for mitigation evidence you know from from the supreme court so if they're alleging that they had indications of relevant mitigating evidence they should have been allowed to develop that and here the judge authorized almost eighty thousand dollars for mr rowland services so it's hard to think that cost could have been a consideration if he would have simply funded the various experts even just a medical doctor and either a neuro psych or a psychiatrist to look into the brain damage and mr white schizophrenia that been argued throughout the proceedings below was that mr white's mitigation was almost identical to that offered by this johnson you know that the fact that she had children and she wanted to be around to raise her children and you know the various issues in her life were very similar to what had been offered in state court for mr white so from my review of the record there is not any kind of a rational basis for why she was allowed to have an entry development or given a life sentence versus mr lay so so what's your best argument to show that available in this case mr white at this time has been stipulated to be incompetent by both parties in the case the district court judge below the initial district court judge authorized funding for his own expert to come in and conduct evaluation and they all agree that mr white is psychotic that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and responded stipulated that he was incompetent prior to consolidate it this is not a minor mental health issue or some slight brain damage this is a very serious mental illness that mr white has suffered from probably for most of his life and if you look at the evidence developed in the second p c r by mr roman almost everyone who had contact with mr white prior to the crime pocs about his delusions his paranoia and you know how it how it affected them in their lives and various things that they did and so why would the medic medical it is laid out pretty well and so the judge did know about that w opinion or officiate blessing of it i guess i should say are you know saying yes that is true what mr romans was suggesting why would that have made the critical difference here because as i no d mr roman was not an expert and the trial court itself limited his testimony to only the matters regarding i think as that as the trial judge put it he wanted to know what indications mr bowman had found that he would have recommended to the lawyer to investigate further he completely shut down any kind of testimony from mr rahman about what the consultant conclusions were or even what ultimate diagnoses he suspected from the from the records that he obtained and so based on that i think you know he expressed a stated that numerous times throughout the hearing it's very hard to think that he considered anything else given the fact that on the second time around the judge did know about most of what you accused counsel of having been deficient on the only thing missing was further medical evidence given the fact that you got relief the first time why isn't mcveigh's action the second time when all this you know the prison files so on were available the judge knew that going missing is the medical evidence why is that on reasonable action or insufficient i'm talking about the first prong strikes and why is it reasonable on the second time around because mr mcveigh conducted no investigation he was unaware of the mitigation that was  during the recent saying yes mr mcveigh i'm sorry you know that procedural history here is confusing he handled the initial post conviction proceeding the resulting re sentencing and then the following direct appeal so the second post conviction proceeding he decides this he uses the term that it would have made a difference to me ok does it matter i mean do we focus on that at all i mean if he would conclude can we just conclude that he's a reasonable jurist instead of because there's been some suggestion in the papers and some of these cases that i've read that it has to be because this is odd because this is the judge this was pretty ring and this was the judge who made the sentencing determination so we're very clear that the standard you use is that of an objective sentence or so i'm not sure that it matters whether it would be a juror or a judge i think the difference is that certainly as to the facts of the case the trial judge what would be in a better position looking at the facts because he had sat through the previous proceedings and the trials but that doesn't mean he'd be in any better position to judge things that he had never been presented with based on the attorney's failures so when he keeps saying this wouldn't have affected me i judge and a jury but i think that that case also the brown versus baker case that just came out those all refer to the fact that it is an objective sensor and that it you can't look at the a t o secrecies of a particular judge and here this is a judge that had continuously denied funding deny the evidence or development that was necessary who then went ahead and just said you know this would have made a difference to me without even knowing what would have been presented and the way that he chose to discount everything was by saying you know this didn't affect him at the time of the crime that he did these various things at the time of the crime and none of these would have impacted him yet he had he had stopped anyone from explaining to him or presenting evidence how this would have affected mr white because he had there's a specific part that you're interested in i don't well what do we do with that is there an issue there that we need to be concerned with and what would you suggest we do with it certainly your honor i would agree that mr mcveigh his actions in this case constitute a deficient performance in fact the time he filed the opening brief jones versus united states decision had already been it came out shortly thereafter before there was oral argument or an opinion and the second direct appeal this was an issue that had has been being raised by arizona defendant since the eighty's it certainly within the prevailing professional norms to have raised that once jones came out again it was the standard of care in arizona for lawyers to be raising things based on those cla jones was the precursor to a printing and certainly had similar language that should have been included mcveigh did raise a claim similar to this but he raised it under the eighth amendment and although the court decided on sixth amendment grounds so it's a little strange but he certainly could have referred back to the claim he raised the court rules that the rule that the court pointed to thirty one point twenty certainly would allow him to have done a variety of things and he could have tried to file a second motion for reconsideration he could have asked for supplemental briefing all of those things are possible what do we do with that now your honor because it's not a claim in the hay be a speech and i'm not sure that there is an available avenue especially because i think it's difficult to show prejudice on that claim because at the time that these claims were being raised in the time that his second direct appeal was being litigated the arizona supreme court was denying all of those claims taste on wall because while most controlling authority from the united states supreme court that said that arizona's system did not violate the sixth and so in fact that's what ring itself said the arizona supreme court's opinion and ring that was ultimately search was granted by the united states supreme court and walton was overturned so because at the time it would not have been a successful claim on the direct appeal it's difficult to show prejudice why would anybody want to be a capital oyur everybody gets sued for how good they are  to your concern about chan kok in that the phraseology used to indicate there was no reasonable probability that this would change his decision and tell me specifically why  because i noted that judge thomas our chief now it specifically in his i think it was concurrence or sent said that you know when we look at when a judge is reviewing this go back and look at it in this unique circumstance that we have now that we look at a reasonable sentence or but you also supposed to contemplate the whether the supreme court of that state what they would have  remember exactly where he had this particular and i don't stand here today or hammer exactly his his reasoning but the test of this record is regional probability and i believe the we just can he do that fairly to sit without specifically knowledge because he kept saying it wouldn't change my decision it wouldn't change my decision well some of his decisions have been called into question i really i wanted to ask you and i would like to come back to this but in thirty years three decades there was no mental health evaluation of this individual and without any explanation by the judge that i'm just curious what's what's how can we what's your response to why that was responsible well your honor is the judge sat through the trial and he understood that the this was a planned crime that occurred over a period of time it was and he from the mr white first got the put a down payment on the gun in november then came back and paid the balance all in preparation for the december killing now judge hancock did a point  collection at one point in the proceeding in two thousand two thousand and five and that was on the what he consider real issue is is this defendant have some sort of mental white's competency via valuated his competency for trial right and judge denied that in a one sentence minute order and mr lockwood at that time indicated that it was based on  actions that mr white spoke to numerous inmates about the case he made report related phone calls to state's witnesses susan's counsels and others not to talk to him about the case and wrote letters to the prosecutor discussing the case and other matters and the judge denied the incompetence and then we have in one nine hundred eighty nine there was another request that the judge denied and then later  i guess the whole time mr a judge hancock was aware of these letters he was receiving that appeared to show some sort of you know questionable behavior and yet no explanation for no mental health evaluation even though he was and this was in two thousand and eight you know this is two thousand and five two thousand five hundred so this is before the last hearing before some of the requests for additional mental health and  she notes that he reported that is thyroid issues have been treated by therapy but this was this was this person evaluated him but crick me if i'm wrong well he comfortable with his finding cuny again and in white to three justices on the arizona supreme court supported it but in that instance where that's the only aggravating factor doesn't it matter even more that the mitigation side of the evidence be properly present that so that he can have the full picture before him in order to weigh whether the mitigation evidence would have warrant at a life so many indications of severe mental illness and so when it went to trial judge who really is focusing very strongly on the sole aggravating factor doesn't have the full mitigation picture how can that not be prejudicial well your honor the this right they not only got him a new sentencing but he had investigator who did investigation he can the record shows he can communicate with the investor the investigator rather art hand randi what true although the investigator or mr mcveigh and they investigated together knew that there was a mental health issue because they tried to contact the mother to see if she would be able to fund further investigation she wasn't in the financial position to do it but then it seemed to drop off there was no real mitigation evidence present i think it seems to me that that mr mcveigh used his sound reasonable judgment that having considered that he disregarded and focus on what he felt was the most promising approach given the state the position of the former prosecutor but you concede that mr mcveigh admitted to not requesting these medical and psychological records that were readily available to him well if you if you look at the jail records they're pretty insignificant i'm just asking if you can see that mcveigh admitted to not getting those records sure but there is no he also stated under oath i believe in that he had no strategic reason for not getting them that's correct ok so why then are his admissions not enough to find him ineffective at that point well because not having so street chick reason is not the same as not having exercising your good professional judgment your original professional judgment and deciding that that is not the most the the best course to take in this situation given the facts of this case given the the facts of this defendant and even when i mean it's just on when you're looking at death penalty they're looking at wayne the aggravating factor which here was the peculiar inches versus you know potential mitigating evidence and here you know you say the a t o c records didn't reveal much at that time i did seems like there were over biometric things that were happening that he was sending the judge and all the other people you know messages of i'm just wouldn't that affect somebodies ability i mean judgment in terms of whether that might be important at a medication it depends on the defendant appends on the crime it depends on the other facts of the case in two thousand  any he had taken some medication for eight months gave it up because he didn't feel as helpful he was not having any problems other than being anxiety he didn't report any delusional behavior to this implode in terms of you know his his mental health from what we can piece together and i guess that's the point that we're having to try to figure out is whether i had a mental health  i assume there's ranges of degrees of schizophrenia i don't know i'm not a medical doctor and could it have been is it possible that you know he's somewhere you know on that scale at different times i mean we just don't know and whatever reasonable person a judge jurist like it would that have affected their determent nation in the end when you when the ultimately you have to weigh the aggravating factors versus the mitigating  but we're looking at this in the context of an i a c claim and part of the cut that context is you have to look at the circumstances you have the fact the fact  understand that i'm just trying to take this though and have you respond to why it wouldn't in this case i don't believe that mr mcveigh felt that there was a serious mental health issue worth pursuing beyond what he did  ask you this just following up on my colleagues question we ask you to be prepared to discuss browning versus baker yes you're on what impact is that case have regarding the obligation of counsel to investigate all of the mitigating factors one can argue one way or another about something but it seems pretty clear that at least under this case there was an obligation to really push for that to find everything that was out there from court talks about you know humanizing people didn't mr mcveigh fall short at least under the standard of brownie versus baker determining factor is given the circumstances the attorney is supposed to use his best professional judgment and go on his that's what he's done rikki it has been exploring with you it seems like mr mcveigh did virtually nothing with respect to the mental health element and that's obviously extremely important component as it turns out in this case doesn't that have some consequence committed and you get down the road and you get to sentencing and that the person is completely unable to help counsel all are you saying that the mental help element doesn't make any difference no i'm not saying that your honor but that's not this i i i don't see in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight sentencing the original sentencing where there was a significant because you're you keep focusing on the strickland standard that we have to you know not engage in second guessing and you know is the case also very clear that we're to be cautious about that and that  have to respect counsel's best professional judgment i think was there yes they did but under the supreme court case more can we say that counsel made a reasonable professional judgment if the record shows that he really didn't make a judgment at all because because if i recall correctly mcveigh said something along the lines of he just flat out didn't think of it when it comes to ordering the department of corrections records on mental health and if he had known about all of these issues he would have ordered the records of course so in an instance it's different if the case let's say had overwhelming aggravating circumstances and counsel talked to the family and sure there were  psychological issues there maybe even mental health issues but counsel kind of evaluated all of the factors and said i don't think that it would really help so i'm going to go ahead and fight the aggravating factors instead i mean then we can say well you know maybe we can we we could have done it differently and present the main evidence as well but that was a reasonable choice here it seems a little bit different because you've got the one aggravating factor which he didn't even challenge at all despite having an opportunity to do so and then you've got lots and lots of potential evidence of mental health serious mental health issues some of which he was on notice for to have been flagged for him he just flat out think about doing it how is that exercising professional judgment she's me on the as far as the the not attacking the all the counter evidence when it decided the cases so that there was nothing unreasonable about that judgment in terms of the what you have to look at is if you find that to be deficient performance is what record what those records would have shown at that was at that time  the with respect the the a b a guidelines which were in effect certainly by the time of the secondary sentencing indicated that counsel had to make and i'm quoting now efforts to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence a i mean i think the supreme court and certainly our court has made it clear that this these are some of the criteria that are taken into consideration when you're looking at the first prong of strickland was was the action taken reasonable and to discover reasonably available mitigating evidence be because an attorney you know in a trial case has limitations in terms of resources has limitations in terms of time it has been available with a letter basically and he didn't do that indeed he didn't think of it i'm not sure that at that time there were that many prison records on rather the last day so there are two hundred whatever was in there he didn't think that's true for  you know that that is true and so if you find that to be unreasonable for him not to have done that given his time constraints how long would it take him to ask for that wouldn't take him long  so but what do those records show that they were given the counsel and i mean this with respect that you don't know what's going to show you look at them and what we're talking about here is whether he took the action to see what was there and as i understand the a b a guidelines and robinson versus schroeder the question is did he have an obligation to inquire and i think that answer is pretty clear yes he did have that it in my answer was medical and mental health information you can find that to be deficient performance but i think you'd have to if you can look at all the circumstances rump ilya is is an excellent case to pointing this out particular judge o'connor's concurrence the file that was in the court house nearby they had time in which to do it so my only point is that in judging the deficient performance prong you do have to consider the circumstances surrounding it i agree but the first prong if it is clear i think it's pretty clear that you are green implicitly or openly case law he needed to do this he didn't do it he said he didn't really think of it he wasn't strategy as my colleague mentioned so let's assume for purposes of discussion  is satisfied the reason for the mitigating evidence is to determine whether this person is going to die or have life without parole and the supreme court's made it very clear that one of the reasons that we look at mitigating evidence is to basically humanize people that otherwise because of the nature of their crimes can appear so heinous that people just get angry and they try to take vengeance they want us to look at people in a very human way this mental health element plays a very important role in that determination does it not it can in some cases ok and if if the evidence that has been deuced in this case were presented to a sentence or a determiner can you see why that might play some role in determining appropriate given what was in the the pre sentence report his his the facts of the crime his conspiracy considered at all before it was strictly that there has to be two sides of it and you're saying that the peculiar emoji was the only one i know the other side has attacked that as well but the reality is if you add this in and everybody seems to he couldn't help the council anymore that was determined fairly early on i could that not play some role in determining whether this individual well warranted any kind of mercy at all i'm sorry i don't recall where in the record it says he was unable to help either we're still lockwood or mr mcveigh i usually rely on the counsel the side the record but it's in large no even the prosecutor handling the case thought that mr white was very manipulable and that susan was the instigator the mastermind had really pushed him repeatedly to do this do you think that some evidence regarding his mental illness s could help bolster the prosecutor's suggestion that susan was actually the one pushing him into this i don't believe the the mental health evidence in the record at that time would have been significant even even though you know the one of the i think probably the strongest  evidence for the aggravating factor of peculiar again was mr white's own admission that he was going to get money to go to medical school when he hadn't graduated from high school he did tend to like twenty different schools and the reasonable you know nothing of that such a statement you know  he think that's that's not possible that that was a mental health evidence would have shed more light on that and maybe undercut the strength of the peculiar there's no question apparently that there was some discussion about picking her again and that that was what the whole life insurance and but you don't think it would shed some light on in the course that piece of information was before the court and there's always supreme court but what was said before the arizona extreme court and and the cork was meant any evidence from a doctor of his mental health that's that is correct ok i just want to ask you before your time ran out i asked this of the federal public defender what do you know why the rule eleven requests to evaluate mr johnson was immediately granted and approved and the request for mr white was not or are any of you know why the why she was given such immediate approval no i do not your honor  time your honor i just have a couple of very quick points regarding the evaluation in two thousand and five that was for the limited purpose of doing i q testing on mr white because during the investigation of the second p c r proceeding  counsel and the mitigate make me mitigation specialist found evidence of i q scores from mr white when he was a child as low as seventy four and based on that after atkins versus virginia was decided by the supreme court that would have made him ineligible for the death penalty so even though mr goldberg had been repeatedly asking for appointment of an expert to conduct additional testing and on for this specific issue the attorney general's office stipulate to the fact that someone should be appointed to for the limited issue of q was that because of the supreme court case or just generally because of the supreme court's case and second this regarding mr white statements that he made to dr herring about the fact that he didn't have any mental health issues other than anxiety if you look at the expert reports that were filed in the district court it's very clear that mr white still does not believe he's delusional mr white firmly believes that the torture that he that is real that he is experiencing and does not believe that he or mentally ill in any way so relying on his own statements that he's not mentally ill certainly are very different from the fact that he believes he's been being tortured by d o c for thirty years ok regrettably your time