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).

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