Was the state court's denial of Petitioner's claims contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Was the state court’s denial of Petitioner’s claims in a written opinion and subsequent summary denial of the same claims in a habeas petition, alleging defense counsel’s failure to investigate, develop and present available evidence in mitigation at the penalty phase, contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or an unreasonable determination of the facts, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)? 2. Was the state court’s denial of Petitioner’s claims in a written opinion and subsequent summary denial of the same claims in a habeas petition, alleging defense counsel’s failures to obtain neuro-psychiatric testing requested by defense expert witnesses before trial and present that evidence at guilt and penalty including (a) Petitioner’s mental illness and (b) other available evidence in mitigation, contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or an unreasonable determination of the facts, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)? 1