tell you because this is connected to a point tom was making earlier to the one to tell you is michael brochard was mentally retarded. michael had a full-scale i.q. of 64. we were litigating his mental retardation up until the very end of the day the supreme court decided to address the question negative delete the constitutionality of lethal injection. why had he not gotten relief of some sort on the basis of the fact that he's mentally retarded? the supreme court of the united states said states cannot execute mentally retarded and mentally retarded is defined as a full-scale iq of 70 or below. he was a full-scale i.q. of 64. he was outside the margin of error yet he was facing execution. how did that happen? i will tell you how that happened. he was represented by a well-meaning lawyer, but the well meaning a lawyer had parkinson's disease. the well-meaning lawyer knew he had parkinson's disease and he asked the court that appointed him to please let him off the case and a point my office instead, and the court said no, so he asked a second time and the second time he asked, the court wasn't