hiring a defense expert he wouldn't even know what to ask the stuff because there's not as in the cases i've cited one of the important functions of the defense expert in this situation is the he the problem we have here is that these attorneys have been preparing the case and they didn't know what to ask because they had not talked to a defense like arthur c colleges to tell him i like to point out that i think that the government for the respondent rather has avoided addressing the issue states because the test is not whether this was a reasonable tactical decision made by the defense attorney the question was you switch it from the death penalty sentencing on facts to the insanity context and make a few tweaks in the facts this case fear begins the smith and keep in mind that when wiggins arose down below in the trial a principal concern in deciding whether the defense attorneys exercised reasonable freshened judgments not whether counsel should have presented in mitigation cases rather we focus on whether the investigation supported council's decision actually interviews mitigating evidence  investigation are reasonable only to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support limitations on investigation a decision not to investigate such must be directly assessed for reasonable miss good all the circumstances what good is the requirement in fake that the defense counsel must have expertise available if defense counsel makes the choice not to hire the expert not delusional and therefore he wasn't really insane yet none of this was explained to the trial judge more importantly the whole process in mental illness it's not something that you're mentally ill now you're not there it's a developmental process and no time to the attorneys make any effort to try honors mental history his development of his mental illness into the defense that just go back and ask the doctors to talk about how his paranoid  prepare now i think considering that these these court appointed doctors are paid a minimal amount of money and are not going to spend hours with you apparently there's a problem when you have someone like connor with this extends to mental history medical history and then sit down and say to the attorney mr attorney this is what you need to have and maybe then if you had done that and asked them to doctors testified that might have been fine although i think it would have been desirable and yet the judge rejects it i say here it's pretty obvious that this that the second promise written can be mad if this the lawyers are properly prepared and produced what dr of their own to help prepare them and also to testify i think it's crystal clear the conner would have been acquitted by reason of insanity manado lost his military pension i don't think the second prong is the real issue here i think that the real issue is addressing whether the choice is made by the two defense attorneys here not to investigate by hiring their own doctor and to help them prepare was a reasonable choice under the circumstances and it is this different court notes and vacancy wouldn't you think you'd be reasonable if somebody came to you i've got two doctors that are going to testify that the state doesn't seem to be very aggressive in this case i've been a lawyer thirty four years i don't know the questions to pass these doctors i don't know how to have them explain the matter and importantly here is neither of these doctors were forensic psychiatrists or psychologists that clinical they treat and once they have learned it all my years of practice is it is so important to have a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist someone who can speak this case the forensic psychologist to testify as to why he was crazier than the loop in this case and should have been found guilty there's something seriously wrong when the respondent can come in and say this was a ta talk about a strategic or tactical decision we're usually talking about a choice there's a reason not to go down to a certain force i'm not sure i understand here if there's any affirmative reason for him not to seek additional assistance from the defense consultant whether or not you have a person does  a different question but is there a reason for him not to try to get the help from a consultant and i'll be honest mistake i'm not sure that there is any reason to turn that down that's not the same question that may not be unprofessional you may think he's got a good enough hand that maybe you know he's a rational judgement for the real questions for us to ask is why the court found these two doctors not them and this goes to the heart of the issue now this argument defeat have to present our evidence in our petition to the district court excuse me is absurd one of the three faces cited in the council's rule twenty eight j letters this month expressly states to the contrary more importantly the instruction sheet attached to the think i did a reply and the magistrate judge came down with this recommendation i objected to the recommendation since it was on the pleadings and were here it is certainly very convenient for them to say we're supposed to do then we have a right to have this court stay know that what is played is sufficient and is the function of the evan injury hearing not the pleading stage to prove your case and certainly we have a lot that we can offer in terms of  evidence at that hearing finally i don't understand this argument that he didn't have to because he had these two doctors when these two doctors had no duty to the defendant whatever and more importantly three of the opening brief two lines down from footnote fourteen where it appears i've given the cite for if you review the state judge's findings of fact it's crystal clear that she doesn't have a clue of the distinction between