When a federal habeas court examines for reasonableness a silent state court habeas denial pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (AEDPA) and Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 109 (2011), must the federal court undertake that examination using the state law in effect which requires the state court accept as true all facts pled in support of the allegations made by a habeas petitioner to determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie case requiring a hearing, or is the federal court free to disregard state law and instead rely on theories and facts the state court could not have considered, and which are contrary to the state court facts, when positing possible reasons for trial counsel's failure to investigate mitigation evidence in a capital case?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When a federal habeas court examines for reasonableness a silent state court habeas denial pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (AEDPA) and Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 109 (2011), must the federal court undertake that examination using the state law in effect which requires the state court accept as true all facts pled in support of the allegations made by a habeas petitioner to determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie case requiring a hearing, or is the federal court free to disregard state law and instead rely on theories and facts the state court could not have considered, and which are contrary to the state court facts, when positing possible reasons for trial counsel’s failure to investigate mitigation evidence in a capital case? 2. Can a federal habeas court determine that a state court summary denial of a capital habeas petition claim of trial counsel ineffective representation without a hearing was reasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (AEDPA) on the grounds that trial counsel in a capital case may have chosen not to investigate severe sexual and physical abuse by his caretakers, organic brain damage, neurological impairments and psychiatric disorders, despite having been advised by his consultants that there was reason to conduct such investigation and despite trial counsel’s post-conviction statement that such mitigation was not inconsistent with his strategy at trial? 3. Can a federal court, reviewing a state court silent determination, rule that, in light of the aggravating circumstances in death penalty case, a state court could reasonably determine that there is no reasonable probability of a different result if counsel had presented evidence of the severe sexual and physical abuse, neurological impairments, and psychiatric impairments, when the state court itself has not adopted the doctrine that no mitigation would result in a life case in certain cases, and such a doctrine violates this Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence? -ii