Whether Faryion Wardrip's trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Though Faryion Wardrip’s trial counsel failed to present critical evidence supporting his strategy to spare Wardrip from the death penalty, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that counsel’s performance was not deficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The court reasoned that counsel made a strategic decision to point instead to the State’s evidence. Granting habeas relief, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeals’s decision was based on unreasonable factual determinations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Indeed, counsel had made clear that the State’s introduction of the evidence was a happy surprise. Over a dissenting opinion, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit nonetheless reversed the district court’s judgment. Were the dissenting judge and district court right? 2. Were the dissenting judge and district court also right that, if counsel presented the critical evidence, it’s reasonably likely at least one juror would have voted against imposing the death penalty, and the Court of Criminal Appeals’s conclusion otherwise unreasonably applied Strickland? 3. After reversing the district court’s judgment, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case for consideration of one but not all of Wardrip’s still-unresolved challenges. Under Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 558 U.S. 1 (2009), is Wardrip entitled to consideration of every unresolved challenge to his death sentence? 2