Did the Mississippi Supreme Court fail to adhere to this Court's Sixth Amendment jurisprudence requiring counsel in a capital case to conduct a thorough investigation of their client's background and history, and that purported 'tactical' decisions are only reasonable to the extent they are based on such an investigation?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (CAPITAL CASE) Counsel for Petitioner Alan Walker admitted he did not prepare for a potential capital murder penalty phase because of his mis-placed confidence that Walker’s coindictee would not testify against him. On the weekend before trial, the co-indictee reached a deal with the state, leaving trial counsel with no option but to “humanize” his client with the witnesses who were available: Walker’s mother, half-sister, halfbrother, and employer. Counsel had not sought investigative or expert assistance save a self-serving motion for a competency evaluation ten days before trial. He stated on the record he had no basis for the motion and that he wanted to protect himself from an ineffectiveness claim. In successive post-conviction proceedings permitted under Mississippi law, new counsel for Walker presented mitigation evidence of a childhood saturated with sexual dysfunction and exposure to sexual abuse, including blatant incest on the part of his step-father and the molestation of Walker and his brother by older teenage girls. An expert psychologist who specializes in the treatment of men who were sexually abused as children testified that the sexual abuse, exploitation, and dysfunction which Walker witnessed and experienced in childhood played a central pivotal role in the rage demonstrated by the crime against Ms. Edwards. A neuropsychologist testified that Walker suffered significant deficits in brain functioning often found in children who suffer abuse or trauma. Despite similarity between these facts and the facts in Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875 (2020), the Mississippi Supreme Court found that Walker had not established the deficient performance of his trial counsel because counsel stated he wanted to “humanize” his client. Contrary to this Court’s precedents, the Mississippi Supreme Court excused the lack of even the most basic investigation to prepare for the penalty phase. Under these facts, the following questions are presented for this Court’s decision: 1. Did the Mississippi Supreme Court fail to adhere to this Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence requiring counsel in a capital case to conduct a thorough investigation of their client’s background and history, and that purported “tactical” decisions are only reasonable to the extent they are based on such an investigation? 2. Was Alan Walker was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the preparation and presentation of mitigation at his capital trial? ii