The Sixth Circuit in Williams v. Anderson, No. 04-3515/3585, on Monday granted relief on the failure of counsel to adequately investigate mitigation evidence and otherwise prepare for the penalty phase:

Defense counsel’s complete failure to investigate and present mitigation constituted deficient performance under Strickland, and the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision finding that counsel did not render deficient performance was contrary to clearly established federal law. The Supreme Court has now stated on at least three occasions that Strickland requires defense counsel to make reasonable investigations into mitigation evidence.3 Rompilla, – U.S. – , 125 S. Ct. at 2462-63; Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 524-25; Williams, 529 U.S. at 395. It has further stated that no decision to forgo the presentation of mitigation evidence is reasonable trial strategy under Strickland unless the decision is made after a reasonable investigation into mitigation evidence. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 533-34. Thus, it follows that defense counsel’s decision to focus on residual doubt alone could not constitute a reasonable trial strategy because defense counsel never conducted an investigation into mitigation before deciding to pursue residual doubt.4 Therefore, the Ohio Supreme Court’s determination that defense counsel’s failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence was not deficient performance was contary to Strickland