went right to the effective representation of counsel it also sadly demonstrates the failings of our criminal justice system and correctional systems to deal out of quickly with the mentally ill mr c staff at the prison and without any arrangements for mental health care on the outside not unpredictably less than a week after his release he committed another offense taking a gold chain from the  teenager mr cobb's told attorney he wanted to receive drug treatment he also asked her about an insanity plea without conducting any investigation into mr cobb's mental condition or his correctional medical investigation in fact the district court found that she didn't conduct an investigation just a court found this was reasonable however because mr karr was mentally retarded and mentally ill fail to volunteer to counsel the that's correct however as i pointed out i did ask the district court for an evidentiary hearing which was denied so i felt that the facts were strong enough because the only issue is whether it was reasonable for counsel not to conduct an investigation under the circumstances i just want to go back it's never reasonable for an attorney to rely solely on what the client does or does not tell her  more unreasonable when that client is mentally impaired and counsel knew he had some impairments in fact she says in her letter that you know she had to try and explain the law to him over and over again and he finally she finally she didn't know was not about his mental health history what she didn't know was that he was on amenable to drug treatment because she didn't find that out so she had him a valuated after she gave him his advice suggestions that she was even after that because she at that point had some information from the first doctor and might have been able to  his mean ability to drug treatment she never asked him she told him and the evidence was clear from both doctors that evaluated mr cobb's he follows instructions so counsel said don't tell the doctor if you have a said that mr cobb's told him that he was acting on counsel's instruction i suppose that's a factual issue i don't think it's determined of here because even when a client tells an attorney something the attorney has an independent duty to try and corroborate that it happens all the time clients are not completely honest with their attorneys here that you can't use that i found that seem to be most  to look into the mental health of everybody so many well when you have to start looking when your client says i wasn't in my right mind when i committed this offense when your client had been incarcerated at a medical facility counsel certainly had a duty to inquire that i would like to make first of all when we deal with an effective assistance of counsel the first question that we look at is prejudice as we pointed out in our brief when the case was before the state courts they argued the issue of prejudice from the standpoint of the  at you only look at was before the state courts and second i think what it when you look at you certainly do make in one sense you make an independent determination but you to make that determination in terms of whether the state court's decision the court would order a hearing hearing right that's right hearing right determination about the doctor and they do that yes they can and the reason they can do it is that there's this is not credibility in terms of who has who has who's telling the truth the question is who is giving a reason the basis for his decision is this doctor is this report crime with grace the evidence that he really is incompetent because just because a doctor comes up with a ultimate conclusion doesn't mean that what is within this report is substantial now the other point i would like to trust to your honor is that whether it's that this federal constitution does not tell the state court how they are to make just how they are to divide the burden within the state you sherry if this if the california supreme court says we can decide this based on the people that are before us then the federal constitution does not prohibit the state courts from doing that and apparently that's what the that's what the california determination because dr cooper's demeanor and his appearance on the stand is not crucial what is crucial here are the facts and the reasoning set forth in his report and the courts can do this briefly with regard to the issues that were just being discussed it's very clear that the california supreme court didn't make a credibility determination or and if they did they were not supposed to do that there was no evidence to counter dr cooper's conclusions in the record and yet if they disregarded them which we don't know we actually don't know what they decided they might have found there was no prejudice they might have found that counsel was reasonable for not even asking her client about his history we just don't know but this court is not bound by anything the state court did under twenty two fifty that determination but then to reach the merits which i'm asking this court to do here and you can look at whatever was in front of the district court and i do i want to say something about the declaration of post conviction counsel that mr cops would not have entered a plea that was submitted before the district court for the first time that doesn't do anything to lessen mr cobb's argument it was made in response to respond and counsel claim based on a failure to advise properly about a guilty plea was whether counsel would have changed her opinion had she done what we're claiming she was supposed to do and the question counsel says in the record before the state court counsel said i don't know whether mr mr cobb's would have changed his advice but i would i mean would have changed his decision but i know what i would have done and i would have told him there was first lockhart for seventy four us at fifty nine and mr cobb's plainly alleged that in the state court briefing and counsel's declaration and statement that she would have changed her advice had she known that he'd been receiving that psychiatric treatment had she known that he was he cannot cross immediately before his release from prison and all of that would have changed her mind there  very compliant defendant it's in the dr cooper's report and dr klein's report there's no evidence that he did on trying to get drugs if he knew differently i don't think