and the original petitioner in this case and other than questions i think i'm going to be actually pretty brief i figure about progress six minutes i think i just want to point a couple things out to make them clearer although i think the brief was by the california supreme court an unreasonable application of strickland that's the past and there's no doubt that you struck when the question is was it unreasonable and the first thing i want to say is that it's important to understand that in pointing out why an expert was needed and that's what was not needed in this case to talk about what mr castillo his mindset was the expert wouldn't have been able to say that probably maybe one that he wouldn't maybe she wouldn't have she wouldn't we have no idea the important point was mr christie or gave some pretty detailed testimony there was one witness who said he looked kind of ok to me and i think that the expert would have been able to testify and explain how a witness would have been mistaken about that and even other c c p expert her p c p s for i don't see anything that we know what an expert would have testified to well the interesting thing about this case is no declaration said we don't have to deal with the hideous california supreme court reversed the reversal and send it back to the hague b s but yes there's nothing in the record and that's one of the reasons don't make too big a point about this but what we do know backed by case law i think it's not unreasonable to say that's what an expert would if that's the part of the thing you could call a fingerprint expert but you know in theory that's true but you'd have to have some expert to say i examine the bigger brains and they don't match or something i mean well no what we're  but one of the effects that p c p has is it makes people's eyes a lot of people's eyes glassy now would it necessarily have made this person's eyes laughing no but it is evidence that supports the person's testimony in the same way as any expert evidence they expert evidence and gangs comes in and we know that the particular gang of the particular person did when it began three says no but what it does is it makes other testimony more believable and so again i don't want to ineffective assistance of counsel prong because the question then becomes assuming that this is a proper instruction had been offered and given with the jury have decided differently so i think one of the ways to look at it is it would have been useful in a pre problem what i want to talk about with regard to the instructional issue is let's take the jury sitting there and getting these instructions and the the jury is told that specifically voluntary ingestion of p c p can negate intent to kill that's told to them specifically in the written instruction there is it says they can also affect mental state although in the instruction me read it wasn't ready but the jury isn't told they had p c p voluntary p c p interaction and have an effect on deliberation and premeditation the real question is and not never call that premeditation and deliberation is a mental state and the mental state that can be that can be negated by p c p ingestion they're never told that isn't reasonable to say that the jury would have put this together and the answer is i don't have an i i don't have a clue and i think the jury wouldn't but i think you want to suggest that we are instruction or even just a general discussion we have a general discussion and i propose a point and i go into it in great detail and i specifically mention the subject of the point and then i have a throwaway line that doesn't go into nearly as much detail all right i find negative federal law and state law both say that a defendant has been filed to pinpoint instruction to certain circumstances i'm all arguing this is one of those circumstances and that an attorney who failed to do that it seems to me under number one the standard of you know the standard of providence how does a lawyer who tries the entire case i'm a diminished mental state not do that and number two  even if someone wasn't really quick on the ball here's the ball given to them here it is yours the silver platter here's the instruction what should be done with it so that it seems to me that even under elsewhere in the instructions right they were just following the instructions but they were not coordinated with the fact that they were metal state that could be a fact that the california supreme court found that the specific intent or mental state would be defined elsewhere the structures and the liberation of meditation were explained elsewhere in the instructions as a requirement of the specific intent needed to commit the crime involved which could be by the voluntary ingestion of the intoxicated right now and that's sort of what i said i guess sort of like some sort of what they said would you want to have him say twice but no because premeditation is not part of specific there was a minor defect and that at the beginning of the instruction of one of the instructions the trial court in reading it only said specific intent and didn't say mental state but then the trial court went on three more times and said so is that a concern or mental state one one final point i'd like to make is that counsel's argument in his briefs that the verdicts were somehow inconsistent that the attempted that the fact that the jury found petitioner not guilty of attempted murder of course has often in him guilty of the murder of garcia that was that somehow showed that the jury must of disagree about premeditation what that actually shows is that the dirt the jury disagreed about  attempted murder charge was charged as a crime meditated attempted murder charge so what the jury had to find was two things was petitioner guilty of attempted murder i e did he has specific intent and if they found that was thought out and so held a jury found on the attempted murder i think is not dispositive as how they would have found on the on the murder and the real question is were they instructed that the voluntary that the you can't talk about diminished capacity can't i go over too far but you can't say he didn't have the capacity to do this but you can say he didn't have that he didn't actually do work and if that's the difference in california thank you all three five zero one six seven five zero two two three united states versus the a marcus is submitted on the brief zero three five zero one four zero united states versus the tory each side has