Whether the Fifth Circuit's resolution of the prejudice prong under Strickland v. Washington contravenes settled Sixth and Eighth Amendment precedent by applying a results-oriented 'double-edged evidence' doctrine

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In federal habeas proceedings, Petitioner William Speer presented a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of his capital trial. The magistrate judge denied a request for supplemental funding for investigation services to develop his evidence of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance, and the district court later dismissed the claim after reviewing it de novo. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fifth Circuit’s resolution of the prejudice prong under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), contravenes settled Sixth and Eighth Amendment precedent by applying a results-oriented “double-edged evidence” doctrine. 2. Whether a district court may disregard the case-specific factors that Ayestas v. Davis, 188 S. Ct. 1080 (2018), “requires courts to consider,” id. at 1094, when determining whether to authorize a request for investigative or expert services in a capital case under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f). NOTICE OF RELATED CASES Anibal Canales v. Bobby Lumpkin, Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, Corr. Inst. Div., S. Ct. No. 20-7065 (pet. for certiorari pending). The Court may have held consideration of Canales until it has rendered a decision in Shinn v. Ramirez, No. 201009. Because the State asserted the same defense under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) in i Speer’s case as it did in Canales, it should consider whether holding this petition is appropriate.