Mr. Boatman alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct, develop, and present readily available evidence of a drug-induced psychosis and heat of passion which would have negated the necessary elements required to prove murder. Mr. Boatman was convicted in large part, due to trial counsel raising a defense of voluntary intoxication without support or corroboration of said theory or instructions to mitigate the elements of murder. Expert witnesses would have testified that Mr. Boatman was suffering from drug-induced psychosis, brought on by poly-substance abuse withdrawal. Had the 150 page medical record been obtained, reviewed and presented at trial, supported by corroborated expert testimony, as well as the necessary jury instructions requested and given, it is likely the outcome would have been different especially since the California appellate court found that the evidence used to convict Mr. Boatman of first degree murder was insufficient and subsequently reduced the first degree murder to second degree. In finding no prejudice, The Ninth Circuit improperly relied upon the lower courts rulings consequently denying Mr. Boatman of his rights to effective representation and this case thus presents the following Ineffective assistance of counsel questions:

1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in deferring to the lower court finding that trial counsel's failures to conduct, develop and present readily available evidence of a drug-induced psychosis, were in fact, not prejudicial?

2. Did the Ninth Circuit err in deferring to the lower courts finding that trial counsel's failure to investigate, develop and elicit sufficient evidence in mitigation/heat of passion was, in fact, not prejudicial?

3. Did the Ninth Circuit err in deferring to the lower courts finding that trial counsel's failure to request the necessary jury instructions supporting defense theories was, in fact, not prejudicial?

Mr. Boatman alleged that the prosecutor misstated and mischaracterized the evidence to lessen his burden of proof, to not prove all elements of the crime, including disproving the existence of heat of passion/sudden quarrel when it was properly presented. Mr. Boatman was ultimately convicted of first degree murder as the prosecutor had free reign to mischaracterize the evidence of a fight that ended in a gunshot in line with his theory. However, the California Appellate court found insufficient evidence for the first degree murder. Mr. Boatman, having never had a voluntary manslaughter instruction, was ultimately over convicted of murder by mischaracterized evidence which, to this date, has yet to be properly determined. This case thus presents the following question:

4. Did the Ninth Circuit err in deferring to the lower court finding that the prosecutor did not create misconduct, lowering his burden of proof, amounting to constitutional violations?

After trial, Mr. Boatman requested different counsel for the purpose of filing a motion for new trial so as to raise the issues presented earlier, with expert assistance, rather than later with no assistance. Sentencing counsel refused. This case thus presents the following question:

5. Was sentencing counsel ineffective in failing to file a motion for new trial and did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that this was not prejudicial?

Mr. Boatman contends that at every phase of his trial a prejudicial error was committed. Trial counsel was negligent in failing to conduct pretrial investigation, in developing and presenting evidence to mitigate and support evidence as well as supporting and requesting necessary jury instructions. The prosecutors misconduct was so great it prejudiced Mr. Boatman and over-convicted him as evidenced by the California Appellate Court reducing Mr. Boatman's first degree murder to second due to insufficiency of evidence leaving

Ineffective assistance of counsel