Whether 'prevailing professional norms' required counsel in a capital case to investigate potential mitigation evidence, including red flags for mental health and substance abuse, before this Court decided 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)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has found constitutionally deficient performance of counsel based on “prevailing professional norms” that precede the Court’s own decisions. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-89 (1984). The questions presented here are as follows: 1. Whether “prevailing professional norms” required counsel in a capital case to investigate potential mitigation evidence, including red flags for mental health and substance abuse, before this Court decided 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)—as the Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held, in conflict with the decision below. 2. Whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), a reasonable attorney would regard the pursuit of services to investigate a capital defendant’s mental health as “sufficiently important,” Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080, 1093 (2018), where it is plausible that the failure to investigate that aspect of petitioner’s background on state postconviction review could, given substantial authority recognizing counsel’s duty to do so, excuse the procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.