difficulty here is probably unique to this case i hope it is unique to this case that the lawyer and the client the lawyer appear to agree that he did not think that the client understood that the defendant in fact said what his version was quote my version you know what it means you are saying guilty but this guy is sorry or something on the record that mr goodwin had been told by his client anything other then what it means so you're saying guilty but this guy is sorry or something  clear that it lawyer who is supposed to make reasonable decisions can't rely on a defendant who doesn't know what he's talking about  premeditation if he had known if there had been evidence of heroin use we have two experts who say that you can't premeditate  under the circumstances of this case that is somebody having nearly overdosed on heroin in approximately twenty minutes prior to the defense we have she shot i shot him out of proximity twenty minutes before and we have somebody saying how long it takes to drive between the two quite so everything is pretty well lined up there and if you decide that there's an inadequate showing of prejudice the appropriate thing to do when there is a showing of that is there to greet is to send it have felt that the only safe way to prevent a dangerous man from getting out again is to give him the death penalty in with me he may not have answered it in the way you might have if you were residing with how do we find legal or well we find legal error because that was the question of the  life without parole they will never be paroled they will be in court like period that likely that parole means like without parole juries just for one reason or another appalling polling in light of what was available to mr hugh goodwin at the time and appalling in light of what we have been able to prepare in the form of the various declarations before the presented information at the penalty phase through a woman named teresa montgomery that native americans drank a lot on the reservation well that just kind of feeds into every truism every cliche that that most americans probably have about native americans as they drink a lot what happens when a mother drinks a lot and drinks by her own admission one truth two times a week and causes this child in utero to develop according to  rosenthal and according to dr no riley fetal alcohol syndrome now not only was mr sankoh was raised in an environment where his mother was drinking huge amounts of alcohol but at the time he was six years old he was severely beaten but it wasn't just one incident of beating as joe walton talked about the probation officer who never saw mr snake which after the age of six that the beating that that did not excuse the attorney from investigating all available mitigating evidence if we were convinced that a mistake which did not diminished intent defense at the penalty phase diminished intent at the family face could have been used for a different purpose and certainly the psychiatrist would not just have have testified in a penalty phase have they been called to a diminished intent they damage and with the my old not profound that mild mental retardation might certainly have had some difficulty in trying to disentangle that whole notion that you are you're not you did the crime but you're not guilty of the charged sense you're not you may not be guilty of first degree murder you may be guilty of second degree murder you may be guilty of manslaughter yes you're right you certainly have committed the actual act but i don't see any evidence that transplant or something i mean we don't i can't i can't answer that because there is no further information on the record but we do know that this is the kind of trust would have testified to the effect of child abuse and we do know that that's one of the very it's mr stank which were vehemently opposed to calling family members then certainly the information from family members could have been used by psychiatrist or psychologist but the thing about the mitigation is ye the mitigation would would not necessarily go to diminished capacity it would go to simply the life history that the wiccans versus smith and the williams vs taylor cases have found by the u s supreme court and also by many said native americans on reservations drink and live in poverty without much correlation with spanking which we have joe walden the probation officer who sketched the very outlines thank you which is life but does not give anything about fetal and it makes that unlike any of these look at the recent cases is that it is that it involved the second trial the defendant had been found guilty of the first trial he had been sentenced to death a diminished capacity defense and been this is the second trial if anything it would show that he's gone through it once and been convicted and sentenced to death seems to me that that would quit attorney number two parts of those attorney number two gets the benefit of reading through the first trial and looking at what he might do better ok you know i'm looking at a trial where i think maybe i'll probably lose on the guilt phase i problem so but but i'm very happy to address the deficiency prong because much of the time we are going through the district court there was this assertion that that council had not obtained and not obtaining not obtain and not read any of the records from the first trial and we pointed out and in our response that it during this period while we were preparing for evidentiary hearing it was determined those experts at the first trial say there were number of experts and essentially they said in the district court pointed this out one of the harms of bringing these experts is these these experts at the first essentially came to the conclusion that the defendant was a such a path that he was callous had no regard for others and there was a very good reason i bring in not not to bring in experts even assuming even assuming and you bring in some new experts who may have differing views there are studies certainly going to open up expert testimony saying now this is not this is not a say he's a sociopath ok so it seems to me that less than one takes from the supreme court in both of these williams cases that they want at least in the penalty phase where the the dynamic is different the guy's been convicted now you're looking to see whether there's anything that's going to cause the jury to try and understand how somebody who's committed grossed extreme terrible crime has any rethinking virtue that might appeal to the jury and if at the end of the process as you're suggesting he says look if i   but what we do know he had seen the testimony and the records at minimum at minimum he looked at dr melton's testimony in the first trial reasonable let's assume that he did speak for are going to testify at least in large part again whereas a second trial he's been found guilty the first time a diminished capacity defense has been presented it has failed and  and mental health experts testified at that first trial that he is a sociopath sell for better and we're better off at that at the second trial not putting anybody on or just putting on the some fairly some fairly folks i think you're better off not putting on experts when they are going to do that the the district court i would point out found that the the not many years after like these experts and so i i think that any any credibility given to the new experts has to be certainly viewed in that  is that the that the district court did not believe that the findings of these experts were supported by the record and that and that one of the reasons is that the expert testified at trial and who would say and and the many experts who had seen this defendant in the course of the institutional settings in which he was placed throughout his lifetime the court felt prejudice issue how much second guessing do we get into here i think you're i mean question it is is that a reasonably probable that that it would have affected want family members testifying at the second trial we had it and for very good very good reason not to present them because they were most hard part had criminal records of their of their own they weren't going to be going into medical premeditation it was an execution style shooting back now if the jury heard evidence that the guy had mental the fact that he's given witnesses that would suggest that they might have they might collapsed on a cross in the second trial and would that be relevant to the prejudice that i don't think i don't see anything in there that would of the other evidence i don't i don't know that it trumped up but the question is i'm that did counsel make a reasonable tactical decision and choosing not to put on those metal experts at the second trial that's the question gave rise to the reversal of the first trial and so there's also no reason to believe that that that he would have cooperated with any of the second trial the ninety it's in here but remind me what the that there was that the experts the new experts were not particularly credible that they were not supported by the record and that in any event the evidence put forth was neither scope of this thing narrowed jeje she had made clear from the outset that he might limit what is based on offers of proof we went through this process i would commend of the court that extensive list of things that occurred  you know his history to the point at which he was pulled out by but we didn't have family members we didn't have to we have neighbors teachers the social workers that they did not at the first trial they also mean i think it's very clear that all he had access to all of  is that that that possibly someone other than the petitioner was the shooter in this case and it's based on johnny stoical that's giving an from the record is that johnny's tank which was in the car and bailed out at some point and that officer read either because he'd been hit or whatever did not did not  passenger so we didn't we didn't believe that one must move shooting i don't know why i would have to remind the which where he was sitting in the car well and here you are right i'd have to go back and look at that look at the exact interview but  and the best i can say is my recollection of i know officer read made a statement in his testimony indicating that seem there that it's very clear that it could not have been johnny and that there was no suggestion at any point that it was that it was johnny i think i just can't i can't at this point from a family member that mr good one may have represented johnny on some grand theft matter so it's very unclear or what the matter was that was never developed  matter the whole idea of the you know the conflict and how it would have impacted here is the suggestion that somehow that would interfere with mr good one s desire to try to pawn this off on johnny and then they said and then and then they and then they point to the interview and the interview johnny is not saying it was him there's the he could have used the interview because the interview is not putting johnny in jeopardy it's blaming on any day so it's just that that whole line just doesn't hold together the second trial gave him a sheet of paper to to refresh his memory and it was the wrong sheet of paper hired no one has to get her and hired no experts so whether he made a call to an expert or whether he actually read the record we don't really know whether he read the record the experts the point is he said he hired no experts and therefore we cannot make any