unreasonable in this case the state court's decision in finding error was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and objectively unreasonable application of the stricken standard there were two ways in explore the psychological background and the basis of this is that the counsel knew that he participated in marijuana smoking to some extent whatever extent he did and he had dyslexia which is a learning difficulty and how does that play into having a psychological background a learning disability is door going to be considered a psychiatric or psychological background and i suppose it's not comes under the a b a rule this is a four point four dash four point one there are two things number one you look at the defendant himself and you mentioned a couple  elam for no apparent reason shot somebody in a brawl in which he was not a participant from ten feet away for no reason and fast to the police and said i don't know why did this was not investigated as part of it so putting all these putting all of this together as you know in this calculus i don't believe that we're monday morning quarterbacking here i think that the defense attorney was on notice that there's something wrong with the shawn now i'm in that something wrong has to do with marijuana and dyslexia i believe that that's part of it but that's not the only thing when we're looking as he shocks people for no apparent reason with that with that trigger investigation with me if he's otherwise down when you talk to him just with those three facts alone the situation well you know i don't i don't think it's just that it's also that he can fast and could not explain why he had done this and the defense attorney himself was putting on an imperfect self defense there which means two things it was unreasonable ok yes that's unreasonable that's you know shooting somebody for no reason you know ten feet away in a brawl in which you're not a participant is unreasonable there's no question about that now was it honest well we have a parent deception here and we know that the prosecutor focus we have a juror in this case there was very concerned with his dyslexia here and you know actually this came about is that the court knows in a note to the judge the jury had complained that this particular juror was not deliberating properly and was considering dyslexia and asked the court whether dyslexia was part of  and then it turns out later on that you know the the and the jerk that the jury was concerned that that the juror was you know going south essentially not deliberating correctly that wasn't there something in the record about  the failure of the of the attorney to follow up the dispute in the testimony between the mother and the attorney where the attorney said that basically you know that mr belin was fine and  the attorney about all these issues the attorney said well you're not my client you know he is and he said that you wanted to tell him that he had been in crack baby or something of that kind or grow up in a crack infested home or am i right there yes i mean there there is evidence in the record in the low end at the motion a new trial that the mother did attempt to get the attorney to look into these issues absolutely and there were things that were wrong with the attorney in this case and i think that that's a really important issue as well this attorney at the new trial motion said that the first time he was aware of dyslexia was that trial which is extraordinary because how do we know this well we know that when i just had confessed he mentioned dyslexia now that's extraordinary to me that one fact that would show that the defendant is impaired or possibly impaired was something that you know either the attorney had forgotten about or wasn't paying attention there were other facts that i think were also important here as well the attorney tonight knowing that on the day that the police went through arrest shawn dalam at his house his stepfather beat up his mother in full view of the police you know wh raising has your psychological background not just general background you're moving into the general background that that would be of some force as well i think i think these things do come together then you know he did have nine conversations with the defendant from other i suppose you're trying to out something about general background but i got through an earlier i thought earlier that the general background was not included in this particular challenge oh specifically states the trial counsel failed pursue any investigation in a petition or psychiatric background says nothing about general background so i just wondered if it's really before us well i think it would be i believe that the psychiatric conflict between the testimony of the attorney and the testimony of the defendant's mother was resolved by the state court in favor of the attorney so i would answer just risks question in that way the other point i would like to make basically is to the the deficient performance strong or that the of the strickland test is that the state was out that in favor of state actually the state court when on that theory that counsel was not to fish and and  judge wallace pointed out we have a situation where we have to select the now the facts of the case are that this defendant fired one shot from under circumstances that some evidence was across the room but it was it was during a clutched the stomach both of the floor after the first shot so the defendant was put in a position where he was firing five shots into a prone into a into a victim who was lying on the floor now as was pointed out by the court dyslexia is a learning disability it's not the issue here was not whether he reversed his letters the issue is simply did he perceive or did he have a perception that this man who was lying on the floor was threatening him with mean i guess for reasonable you'd have to say something is not right with this defendant well i think it's the the the reason is that the defendant is there yes that is that he looks at from the standpoint of whether there's a reasonable mental state defense not whether the defendant has an abstract mental problem now what we're talking about here is someone again he says he is going on the floor firing shots according to some of the evidence in the record five shots at the victim he's laying them now so if the defendant were to tell him i thought when he was lying on the floor i thought that he was coming at me or i thought that something else was happening then we would have a whole different situation but there was no evidence that he told the attorney that and in fact if the attorney had even brought that up we would get the prejudiced argument where if he had testified i had a flashback which we the only way  stories in there but he would have said this is like the fourth story that this defendant had had given now he has a flashback he never told police he had a flashback russell hantz if you have somebody that just kind of walks up to a stranger on the street and shoots them the very first thing you do is a psychiatric examination to find out what in the world is going on here right well i don't disagree with that but what we're talking about is something similar to that here he just kind of shoots the guy you know you had a home invasion you different defenses here to the murder charge some of which were defense against intruder sudden quarrel things of that nature so the it was a situation where the attorney had only one defense and one thing to one thing to look into is a situation where the attorney had another defense a very substantial defense against the the now the element of malice course he shoots somebody that's on the ground five times the defense kind of goes out the window doesn't it well but then again you have to say that well there was there was one at points here perceive something differently from what was really existing there well if you perceive something differently then you should communicate to your attorney and then you can investigate it but the state court recently concluded that if you didn't put didn't view is imperfect self defense is awfully tough tough to sell a trial and i think the argument here is he needed something the size is not testimony to bolster you know some psychiatric testimony or something that would bolster his  said i shot him because i thought i needed to to myself what he kept saying was i don't know why i shot him well that's kind of scary he's a lawyer decided to defend this case these are not easy cases and you got to pick and choose he decided made a decision you do it on imperfect self defense in order to do that if i understand correctly it has to be based on a genuine belief that you need to shoot them for your own because there was very clear evidence that there was a sudden quarrel and the jury that this was a home intrusion and this was a quarrel and the jury was instructed on the elements of manslaughter voluntary manslaughter and that includes the quarrel the fact that if i understand correctly the defendant never testified that he was under any apprehension that he needed to self defense that's true although there was evidence that he would have to use defense for the or actually he didn't he didn't testify to that effect but there was evidence that the victim was being very physical with people who were in the house so that we could have done for a defense of other of imminent harm i think that there was a that the evidence that will look the whole spectrum of what was happening at the scene at the time then we have then he has that so the defense was would be even though he says i don't know why i did it the evidence would be that you argue well he know why he did it he just can't remember now he shot in self defense well i suppose that could be that there could be a was less than the best choice to try and get an imperfect self defense before the jury was that raised i don't recall that it was  real issue is not whether the defendant performed the act in question but whether the defendant had the requisite intent and capacity and that's really what this case is all about it goes on further and this is what i believe needs to be emphasized here the accused may not be aware of the significance of facts relevant to intent in determining criminal responsibility and i believe that the state court and the federal court in ratifying the state courts finding confused the issue i believe