Must a court reviewing counsel's failure to investigate first determine whether the basis for the failure was counsel's ignorance of the law, or another non-strategic reason, before it can evaluate whether counsel's stated strategy was 'reasonable?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this case, counsel failed to investigate Petitioner’s only conceivable defense because she misunderstood the law and did not realize that such a defense was available. Nevertheless, after trial, counsel offered a strategic rationale for why such an investigation was unnecessary. This scenario juxtaposes two competing lines of authority from this Court. On the one hand, this Court has directed that trial counsel’s reasonable strategic decisions are nearly unassailable, especially in the context of habeas corpus. On the other hand, this Court has also held that counsel’s performance is not strategic where it is a product of her ignorance of controlling authority of which reasonable counsel would be aware. As it has in other jurisdictions, this created a “cart and horse” problem in this case, as the lower courts evaluated the reasonableness of counsel’s stated strategy, rather than whether counsel's conduct was a strategic choice at all. The questions presented in this case are: 1. Must a court reviewing counsel’s failure to investigate first determine whether the basis for the failure was counsel’s ignorance of the law, or another non-strategic reason, before it can evaluate whether counsel’s stated strategy was “reasonable”? 2. Does a state court who gives deference to counsel’s strategic judgments where no deference is owed unreasonably apply clearly established Federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)?