When the state court denies a petitioner's claim that his counsel were ineffective for failing to present his organic brain impairment, without affording him a hearing or granting him funding to secure expert evidence, is the federal court wrong in its conclusion that Cullen v. Pinholster precludes the federal court from considering the evidence establishing organic impairment, solely because it was developed in federal habeas proceedings?

QUESTION PRESENTED The evidence in the state court record suggested that Sean Carter suffers from organic brain damage. Carter’s trial attorneys performed deficiently, to his prejudice, when they refused the trial court’s offer to provide Carter with the medical testing necessary to establish Carter’s organic brain impairment. Prior to federal court, however, Carter had been unable to develop the evidence demonstrating that he had organic impairment, because—despite his requests—the state appellate courts denied him a hearing and the funding to do so in violation of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). The Federal District Court, however, granted Carter the funding and hearing necessary to establish his organic brain impairment. But the federal courts mistakenly found that Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011), prohibited them from considering this evidence to establish prejudice. When the state court denies a petitioner’s claim that his counsel were ineffective for failing to present his organic brain impairment, without affording him a hearing or granting him funding to secure expert evidence, is the federal court wrong in its conclusion that Cullen v. Pinholster precludes the federal court from considering the evidence establishing organic impairment, solely because it was developed in federal habeas proceedings?