Task: Text Completion
Input (English): to establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel by showing that they should have done something more or something different instead of showing that no reasonable attorney would have done what Hart and Downs did given the facts and circumstances of this particular case. At the evidentiary hearing, Taylor’s primary witness was Dr. Drob. The bulk of Drob’s testimony was that, at the time of Taylor’s trial, there was, in his opinion, evidence that he suffered from certain mental illnesses that could have been considered by the jury and the court in mitigation. Though the Court allowed Drob to express his opinion about what he considered to be mitigating, the Court is aware that such testimony would not have been permitted at Taylor’s trial. See, Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d at 1506 (<HOLDING>). Further, Dr. King testified for the State 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that expert testimony should be excluded when jury is equally competent to form an opinion about ultimate fact issue or experts testimony is within jurys common knowledge (B) holding that the court is limited in amending a verdict after discharge of the jury and cannot invade the province of the jury (C) holding that the trial court correctly refused to give the jury a peremptory instruction on the f2 mitigating circumstance when an expert testified about inconsistent diagnoses of the defendant thereby making evidence of the defendants mental or emotional disturbance    not uncontroverted (D) holding that a jury does not invade the province of the board when it determines the probability of a capital defendants future dangerousness (E) holding that no mental health expert is competent to express an opinion about whether a particular set of facts constitutes a mitigating circumstance because that would invade the province of the judge and jury
Output (English): (E)