Whether a state or federal habeas court may reasonably conclude that a crime is so aggravated that no mitigation could persuade even one juror to vote for a life verdict

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This capital case, in which defense counsel’s investigation and preparation for the penalty phase was grossly deficient, presents two questions concerning what is and is not a reasonable application of the prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). On both questions, there are mutually inconsistent lines of authority in the Courts of Appeals, and review is called for under Supreme Court Rule 10(a): 1. Whether a state or federal habeas court may reasonably conclude that a crime is so aggravated that no mitigation could persuade even one juror to vote for a life verdict, so that ineffective assistance of counsel or other error at the penalty phase cannot be prejudicial, notwithstanding that juries regularly return life verdicts in highly aggravated cases? 2. Whether, consistent with Strickland and Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 393 (2005), a habeas court may require a petitioner to make a “compelling” showing of prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel, and may find an absence of prejudice based on a reasonable likelihood that the result of the trial could have been the same even in the absence of the ineffective assistance? kok kee ii PARTIES TO THE CASE All parties are listed in the caption. LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS People v. Bolin, No. 41477-A, Kern County (California) Superior Court, judgment entered February 25, 1991. People v. Bolin, No. S019786, California Supreme Court, opinion issued June 18, 1998. Bolin v. California, No. 98-7182, this Court, certiorari denied March 8, 1999. In re Bolin on Habeas Corpus, No. $090684, California Supreme Court, order issued January 19, 2005. Bolin v. Warden of San Quentin State Prison, No. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, judgment entered June 9, 2016. Bolin v. Davis, No. 16-99009, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, opinion issued September 15, 2021. KEKE iii