was-the-state-court's-summary-denial-contrary-to-federal-law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Was the state court’s summary denial of Petitioner’s claims that defense counsels’ failure to present evidence corroborating his sexual abuse by his mother, the psychological impairments caused by incest, and the relation between Petitioner’s victimization by his mother and the crimes contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by this Court or an unreasonable determination of the facts, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)? 2. Was it unreasonable for the state court to conclude that, in light of the aggravating circumstances in this case, there is no reasonable probability of a different result if counsel had presented evidence corroborating Petitioner’s sexual abuse by his mother, the psychological impairments he suffered because of incest, and the relation between this abuse and the crimes? -j