linda burns don't bother had been killed she had been asked in a jury questionnaire whether any number of a person emilie had been a victim of a crime he did not reveal their father was a crime  age sixty one to stated that after hearing everything that she heard about the incident she believed that her father had been killed absolutely and she stated that it aged three thousand and sixty five and then she stated i just she didn't interpret the question correctly she wrote down there in the affirmative that her brother in law and then a victim of crime drugs in it's undisputed that he can strongly that she misinterpreted the question asked specifically whether any number of her family had been the victim of a crime and then asked was anyone ever arrested for the crime objective evidence interpretation of the question the standard requires us to get into her mind the evidence we have now indeed it would have been cleared it was clear to her  to that she didn't intentionally mislead anyone and her answer your honor i understand the court's questioning the court's point i was just noting being slow to fill out the questionnaire and there was no suggestion actually that isn't that's quite correct she was high school in th grade however she also had a job she was a billing clerk at a rail services company in her band i subscribe to three newspapers and there is no suggestion when she was testifying that she had trouble understanding straightforward english language terms we were stuck using it at the evidence including her very powerful feelings about her father's murder put no where instead of put and brother in law in there which would invoke further questions and they didn't for the question added how does your theory make nothing was simply said now but i would submit it in light of everything else that she said and that we know she thought at the time of the trial and in light of the straightforward did virtually nothing it was a triple interview in the place of three witnesses at one time and it was only eleven days before the trial and i mean very similar to the  all counsel had talked to two or more and when relatives who testified trial on about the defendant over  fashion witnesses to the crime or fact witnesses to the crime any conversation these attorneys had with these women had to have been about the defendant general  go into a diminished capacity or substantial influence subject to influence  that your parents to base their verdict on the testimony and evidence and then trial and on the course instruction and also found that the events surrounding her father's death had no bearing on her for it and so while they you do use the word prejudiced because the defense asked them g s the state law of the supreme court case that specifically that there is no constitutional right to preemptory challenges and so they would have to show not only that they what are challenged as a cause which is to clarify the counsel testified that they probably would have challenged of the call never that they certainly want to even assuming that they want to challenge her for cause the standard requires that they could have successfully challenged because as we just talked about that means showing that she would have and decided the case based on evidence that wasn't presented at trial also there's good evidence in the record that she will if she had been challenged because she would not have been business under the alabama judge's decisions at the time there was another juror on his nephew had been killed in a rock convenience  robbery the sunday before my dear started and quite specifically found they asked if he could be impartial he said yes and the bar says that if i found that his nephew being killed in  they court was not did not violate any clearly established federal law when it sounds as much with the standard though it's whether there's a reasonable probability that there would have been a different and then the court goes on to say that what that means that this is that the court must ignore any error that did not affect the fairness of trial and that's why they have the nd step and they say that only  not the court believes that the jar but also just and that demeanor played a fundamental role in simply understanding what the potential jurors fame and so i mean or inflection to flow questions and answers in a confused and there was a youthful offender status hearing there was two of them one in which the court commissioned the report or told the probation officer to go and do a background investigation and meet with mr recorder and then a nd one after that report had  been compiled and given to the the senate in which the defendant testified and mr gordy testified that once he had gone over that report with his attorney at length and to everything in that report was correct so i don't know the content of most of the and if we are starting with the full and center investigation this was received eight to nine months before the trial in june or july the one thing i read and it included the juvenile record personal social strategy decision but just to go over the other information they had they had spoken to the mother desisted and a quarter there's the mobile homes the probation officer that wrote the report and the st interview with the mother and which was joint was discussed all the general background would be helpful also on july nine hundred and ninety three which is about seven months before the trial they subpoenaed the medical records from the suicide  and my friend said in his opening brief it to an eighteen that that was in preparation for the penalty phase that's at least seven months before they are already taking steps for the penalty phase you want them the attorneys also met with reporter for at least an hour and a half to a day's worth of testing a clinical interview then counsel reached back out to him at the beginning of march and asked him to do a nd if you would be willing to do a nd about you asians he said yes but he more white background information that's why they did the triple interview it was in response dr robin asking for additional life background information then they asked the court for additional funds for a nd evaluation specifically for mitigating evidence in the market when trial transcript there make it very clear it sa that judge i don't know if you testify or not the situation is i have some additional information i would like to send to dr robbins to review seedings will be significant in light of his past examination and the event that he is called upon to testify at the  was no brain damage and that is not specifically in his report but he did testified that at the rule thirty two hearing that there was no brain damage and then countless times by that he had asked about it he do that from the conversations  that information the attorneys made a strategy decision and they chose to go with this idea that he was influenced by the wrong crowd but that he had grown up being a big kid and that they were specifically wanted to play in the sympathy of the family and this court found that playing on the sympathy of the family is reasonable because not much of this mitigation evidence that was not used ample evidence they had almost all of the evidence that was at their already two hearing at least in kind is not and windy and they made a reasonable strategy decision and that strategy decision is virtually unassailable because they it which none of it was challenged by the additional evidence that alone is not sufficient to overcome prejudice and is a factor to consider now how important and so the baby focused on  aggravating circumstances like the planning and waiting in the house for three or four hours the shooting eleven times and then the kill shot in the head along on the floor that he has only remorse was that there wasn't more money and he retrieve the walled off the dead body that he was part of the gang and all these graphic pictures and so the state did not try to can has he had been a good kid or that this was their own travel and like i said before a large part of the tribe he was also playing on the stand the day of the family  and so i don't i don't think that keeping out that additional evidence that what that i don't think they kept out evidence that would have been helpful that they had and i don't think it was unreasonable not investigate those leads are there as they said they or the statement was not unreasonable to find that these attorneys had not behaved in affectively and asked the president we've already talked about it a little bit we've mentioned that the evidence is cumulative but also a lot of it was double edged even for the strategy that my my friends were going for and for instance the drug and alcohol and the evidence of drug and alcohol abuse the journey that they went of even used it because without some lasting  said that even if there was as there was testimony that filled out a previous game more detail about instances are facts that have been discussed in the penalty phase but didn't bring up anything fundamentally  new that wasn't enough to overcome prejudice and so here there's nothing fundamentally new there's nothing about the testimony of the coach and the teacher that would have brought anything that the penalty phase jury or the sentencing judge had not already heard and even if you want to say well they should have heard that there's not a reasonable probability that hearing from the teacher and the coach that he had along a school would have caused them to differently when they heard the same type of evidence from the mother and his employers and that did not convince them this is not a case where this court has what has found the evidence to be abuse and brain damage and or the missing a statue or mitigating factor or any of those things that would require that would allow the court overturned a prejudice decision and the state court was reasonable at the very least it's not unreasonable to find that mr recorder was not present even assuming that this year long investigation w all it said was in front four witnesses take the stand to talk about the knowledge of this young man all very poignant it's and she testified no but i think he had a crush on the young and somewhat of ducking and but the fact of the matter is that counsel didn't know about any of this and it's a bit not the case now with the thank you thank you