of Respondent’s expert comes as no surprise. The Court has not seen evidence and does not believe, having had its own opportunity to hear from the experts both on direct and cross-examination, that any of the experts who testified in this case are biased or have such unreliable opinions that the opinions should or would be disregarded all to gether. Moreover, Respondent's criticisms of Petitioner’s experts and their opinions are not so persuasive that they end the prejudice inquiry. 13 . Even if Petitioner were not able to link his mental impairment to the crimes convincingly, Petitioner’s mental health evidence still would have been relevant mitigating evidence due to be considered by the jury. See Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285-88, 124 S.Ct. 2562, 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Evidence of guilt in Ferrell appears to
recognizing the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance as a mitigating factor holding that a general statement about how the defendant wanted to introduce evidence of medical or mental impairment to show that the defendant lacked the proper mental state was an insufficient offer  there must be some meat of the actual evidence holding that evidence of an impaired mental condition that does not rise to floridas definition of insanity is not admissible holding that evidence of impaired mental functioning is inherently mitigating and that a defendant is not required to demonstrate a nexus between his mental capacity and the crime committed holding that no federal nexus is required