with the benefit of four decades behind by the district court had concluded that marc rogers trial counsel performed efficiently in presenting insanity to bend but the defense of the district court expected was not an adequate insanity defen testified that roger did not have the the ability to understand the quality of adoption and at the time of the murder could not understand right from wrong in other words the jury heard exactly the defense  that council did not meet the standard because it how would the district judge to know with the standard of care is unless she hears testimony about it would she could have just believe that she could have said i'm sorry  i believe the court should review everything in contact and as a whole because the ultimate presidency is whether this is whether the insanity defense was adequately presented and given the information that was before the jury and believe  below the standard care put aside whether or not it ultimately putting aside whether at all merely president the outcome it was not it was not the correct position i would agree well of the supreme court interview about reasonable probability undermine my confidence in the case to be the state said oh you shouldn't believe that early because he's being paid he didn't spend a lot of time with this person  helpful actually had a reasonable reason for calling dr pollack she testified that she knew he was a teaching doctor and she believed he would be the best one to set forth for jury who did not have the background what about any additional witnesses that could have been called on not guilty by reason of insanity defense my question is am i correct that not a question about that can i i don't want to leave this topic unless my call is that my colleagues have further questions that i had a question about an entirely different topic and unfortunately the courtroom paanch is not in front of me so i don't know  correct in granting the rent so you know you this is a step ahead of where you want to be but let's assume that we found that the court correctly granted the read and you say well it shouldn't have conditioned the read on either him and you don't want to do that so i'm trying to figure out i mean you may be right legally i mean you are you really want to strike that nd your honor was something that was of concern to this day in reviewing the court decision we weren't sure that was when the within the court authority and given the specific relief of the judging him not guilty by reason of insanity which is within the purview of the jury and opinion he says i am not able to render an opinion on that issue in this case because mr rogers cannot or will not talk about the events so no injuries hearing from one of defense's own experts this isn't the kind of not presenting an expert who was appointed by the court who saw mr rogers a mere forty days after the ensign offense was credible because the prosecutor argued dr probably can't give an opinion on this issue he didn't even meet mr right yes your honor is absolutely true which is why it was so important to have confirmed credible testimony from doctors regarding mr rogers mental state at the time of the fans and here up your your entire argument but i thought it would be helpful here and so my answer is that we have to look at the big picture so why would dr mohler have made a difference because again he saw mr rogers st in time it's much more believable to the jury that a person who sees him within forty days of the event says i've looked at all this stuff and i think that this man didn't understand or appreciate the nature of all he was asked for and again has seen him multiple times over multiple months st time and was paid by the defense possible for a mental health professional to render an opinion on the ultimate issue in this case you know you know you say that i didn't find out anywhere in the transcript weren't anywhere and it would not be that may have been the reason although we don't know what they would have said had they been given i'm not sure that's him but what the record doesn't say they said it's impossible whether somebody can tell right from wrong at the time of the crime by critical documents that he admitted would have been helpful and the fact that he didn't turn around and yes your honor that's correct he also said that he did not know where the reports of mr rogers behavior before and after the events came from whether they be defense investigators or prosecution investigators and it was critical again where the only basis for his opinion on his sanity were these records released by standard reporters so for him not to even prong of anti social requires proof of three or more enumerated behaviors before the age of fifteen dr cartwright testified he didn't have any information about mr rogers predating his stay at least crossing so the jury through the mother dr polly confirms that mr rogers exhibited anti social and violent behaviors truck counsel failed to elicit from dr polly that those w so the jury did not hear anything from any of the experts that would have explained mr rogers allegedly anti social behaviors in youth in the context of the schizophrenia thing is this and that's another example of something that just a small  trial counsel would have gone a long way in legitimize ing the credibility of their experts diagnoses and undermined dr good trade which is another point we haven't spoken about yet that's relevant to both division performance and prejudice but going to give a couple of extra f regardless of whether dr molting testify is solely or in tandem with dr polly the fact that underlie that he would not have changed and so the jury would still be presented with a gruesome crime things that could have been considered evidence defending jill's consciousness of guilt mr rogers feeling to the sparrows truck shooting at a witness out of you drove away from the crime scene these are all back that would not reasonable probability that you would have been a judge not guilty by reason of insanity given additional effort who would have to by given dr moby coming in now i agree that is the question but it seems to me has the overwhelming evidence that he committed the crime doesn't help well the only reason i would disagree with your honor is because we're looking at this reasonable probability and we have to consider everything that was in front of the jury at the time of the trial and what i what i'm trying to say is you have a factual record that does not change with an additional effort and additional ever who will have testified to the exacting information  have evidence in the record that the jury could reasonably rely on to ultimately make a finding of guilt the by the we get to my question about and i don't have a better analogy and so i asked the same question the same way again are generally better than one and two is better than one with number two as virtues that number one doesn't have having seen the patient longer having seen the patient closer to the time of the sober number one and virtues in addition to them even if his ultimate testimony is the same and on the record i don't know what to make of the six and a half hours on the record just strikes me as a relatively close case be better than one but i would say that sewin better than one when the nd one does not have any criteria on which they could also be challenged dr will the testify are there with some testimony to draw from all the does not conform diagnose it to the d s m three and the under that would have been ill enough an entirely different avenues undermine his credibility for the state i believe the problem here is that we're trying to make a one to one compare and there were different aspects undermine just not being given competent counsel to present a case mitigation in the sacramento public defender's office she had developed help to develop the defendant in that office she had nd chair a st degree murder trial with her mentor when she came over to the nevada state public defender's office this is not a capital is undoubtably difficult because it was undoubtedly undoubtedly close there was no such overwhelming evidence of guilt and the real question was the mental state at the time and the expert in question as to by that mark rogers did not mean that mark rogers met the legal definition of insanity the jury had the defense in front of it and simply rejected it regardless of counsel's potential performance issues the question is still whether there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome and i think in light of the facts of this particular case the nature of the facts that were before the jury that could allow them to