Did the Ninth Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254's deferential standard, and employ a flawed methodology this Court has repeatedly condemned, when it granted habeas relief based on a de novo finding that a Sixth Amendment violation had occurred?

QUESTION PRESENTED Respondent George Russell Kayer sits on Arizona’s death row for shooting Delbert Haas twice in the head more than a quarter-century ago. The state post-conviction court denied on the merits Kayer’s claim that his attorneys ineffectively investigated and presented mitigation at sentencing. Subsequently, bound by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the district court denied habeas relief on that claim. App. 82185. A divided Ninth Circuit panel, however, reversed the district court, applying no meaningful deference to the state court’s decision. App. 2-81. Judge Carlos Bea then authored a_ twelve-judge dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing. App. 255-289. The Question Presented is as follows: Did the Ninth Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254’s deferential standard, and employ a_ flawed methodology this Court has repeatedly condemned, when it granted habeas relief based on a de novo finding that a Sixth Amendment violation had occurred? ii STATEMENT OF