court i am ron tyler i represent good wouldn't wrote at the petitioner in this matter your honor is i'd first like to indicate that i will be focusing on the first claim that was presented and we are submitting on the briefs the second line the first claim is that counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to even investigate much less true sense evidence that my client did not possess the psychological characteristics of a resident child molester first of all in terms of the standard of decision not to evaluate not to conduct an evaluation with present such evidence and it's correct that the district court in taking evidence make factual findings that there had been certain certain tactical decisions incorrect but i do think that the of course after and friday that the that and i reached the object of the unreasonable application is apparently distinct from clearly erroneous amplification so it would be if this is controlled by and driving then it would require a conclusion that the state court decision was objective and reasonable here i think that instead because the state court did not engage in any insufficient  about the introduction of the affair that's not along with forms the basis for this decision let's pursue the investigation or potentially to put on the other hand he could have as we argued below he could that then would have provided him with an informed basis for the decision i think also that his decisions are not introduced to maps and seek to reintroduce that evidence based on the fear about the affair is arguably not a reasonable decision because ruling because he would not receive a ruling on such a speculative issue i think is the way that he described that was the primary reason that he gave you also indicated that when asked about the lack of any evidence of motions counsel and so the reason that the california court of appeal decision in scouting in terms of trial counsel may have had reasons was that he never aware just whether counsel had tactical reasons for down that counsel has to go down every avenue to collect all possible evidence and then make the determination at the last possible minute whether i'm actually going to try to get it right it probably depends to some degree how important it is and that seems very important i don't see any chance to testify that he didn't think that there was any way that he was going to get a ruling on this and also that he didn't think that ultimately there was any way that the trial judge was going to keep the prosecutor questioning a stolen expert about about the defendant's contacts with children and i think that's absolutely correct i don't see how that could possibly any however the trouble is possibly so restrict the prosecutor's cross examination his sexual contacts with adult women i mean the psychologist did ask him about these things you know did you have a girlfriend at the time did you see i got women at the top i think these are basically the psychologists opinion in what what happens next you know you're saying that assuming you're not persuaded by his explanation of his reasons for not pursuing the investigation facts like the fact that even though she's nine years old she's testifying about the fact that after the apps she's feeling wetness on or buttocks and that she's wiping it off with a towel and she needle defense counsel pointed out of the evidence rehearing that he had a real problem getting around that because it indicates knowledge of sexual matters that you wouldn't expect in a nine year old and he had no alternate source for  you also have the fact that she right may have been there is no credible explanation for why she would be i mean she hated her stepfather but writer uncle ok so but she accuses her uncle and now at this late date that what they showed is that the evidence you're hearing is not the best that they could do when there was something better out there that i then have to prove that it would and would not have been prejudicial to you your honor first of all just picking up on a few of the matters which were raised by the state in terms of the source of information for the complaining witness other information that was available that was demonstrated at trial is that in fact she had with her siblings watched x rated videos she certainly had a basis for knowledge about sexuality and in our knowledge about how there could be wetness so it's not accurate to say that there was no other source of that information i think that also that earlier in the argument when the court was pointing out that a motion in limine might well have been ruled on in favor indeed could have been a basis for that type of argument i while i was sitting down just for a moment on the standard of review just looked at the children again and i think that some of the language from killing and is particularly appropriate here where th not really a well informed decision has to say that while there was some consideration if it doesn't reach the level of being a well informed decision then it then it shouldn't satisfy struck one because i mean you're certainly not arguing for a partial tyrol because i had a minimum somebody who had less so but there's no evidence in the record to demonstrate that he has that kind of that he has the ability to make those assessments and so that's the problem with that type of analysis if you made is that it wasn't well informed analysis because he doesn't he didn't have the background to make the the jury so i understand but it seems to me that's that's an odd worry because it suggests that juries that cannot be discerning enough to recognize that the psychology is an entire field of endeavor might very well be