Does a circuit court contravene this Court's decisions in Strickland-v-Washington, Wiggins-v-Smith, Rompilla-v-Beard, and Porter-v-McCollum where it determines that the state court reasonably ignored new and more detailed mitigating evidence presented in support of a penalty-phase claim simply because that evidence relates to the same general themes for which only weak factual support was presented at trial?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Tremane Wood was one of four defendants charged with crimes related to the death of Ronnie Wipf, which occurred in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on January 1, 2002. Mr. Wood was the only one sentenced to death. Mr. Wood was represented at trial by court-appointed counsel who did little to investigate his case and who failed to present mitigating evidence to Mr. Wood’s penalty-phase jury. Lead counsel, John Albert, struggled with substance abuse and faced disciplinary action in connection with his representation of two other capital defendants around the time that he represented Mr. Wood. Those cases were ultimately overturned because of Albert’s ineffectiveness. As a result of Albert’s and co-counsel’s myriad inadequacies, Mr. Wood was sentenced to death. On federal habeas review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). It did so by ignoring evidence in the record before the state court, by analyzing reasons for denying relief not contained in the last-reasoned state court decision, and by contravening this Court’s decisions in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and its progeny. The questions presented by this case are the following: 1. Does a circuit court contravene this Court’s decisions in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), and Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009), where it determines that the state court reasonably ignored new and more detailed mitigating evidence presented in support of a penalty-phase claim simply because that evidence relates to the same general themes for which only weak factual support was presented at trial? 2. Does a circuit court contravene this Court’s decision in Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018), where it fails to examine the actual reasoning provided in the state court’s last-reasoned opinion denying a federal constitutional claim and instead examines, and holds reasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), hypothetical reasoning not provided by the state court? 3. Does a circuit court contravene this Court’s decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011), where it fails to consider under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) evidence in the record before the state court that adjudicated a federal constitutional claim? i