Whether trial counsel's failure to investigate the defendant's history of mental illness and mental health issues, including as it related to the alleged crime and the defendant's seemingly inculpatory post-arrest conduct, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel

QUESTION PRESENTED The United States Constitution guarantees all criminal defendants effective assistance of counsel. A fundamental and threshold obligation of effective counsel is to conduct a proper investigation in advance of trial, especially as it pertains to potentially exculpatory evidence. “[S]trategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable only to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.” Wiggins v. Smith, 589 U.S. 510, 534 (2003) (quotations omitted); see also Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 40 (2009) (“The decision not to investigate did not reflect reasonable professional judgment.”). : Mr. Etienne was diagnosed with schizophrenia after his incarceration for the murder conviction underlying this Petition. While the State’s post-conviction expert opined that she could not discern whether Mr. Etienne suffered from schizophrenia at the time of the alleged crimes, Mr. Etienne’s post-conviction expert reached that conclusion. Following Mr. Etienne’s arrest for the conduct underlying his ; : conviction, he exhibited erratic and seemingly inculpatory behavior, which was ; relied upon by the State to secure its conviction. Mr, Etienne’s trial counsel failed to investigate evidence—which was readily Mr. Etienne’s long history of mental illness, mental health hospitalization, and erratic behavior. Mr. Etienne’s trial counsel failed to retain an expert to evaluate and diagnose Mr. Etienne prior to trial. Mr, Etienne’s trial counsel, by their own admission, failed to counter the State’s highly prejudicial use of Mr. Etienne’s erratic and seemingly inculpatory post-arrest behavior, And Mr. Etienne’s trial counsel failed to use the exculpatory evidence they would have gained, had they conducted any investigation into Mr. Etienne’s mental health, in pre-trial plea negotiations, at trial, or at sentencing. The question presented—which finds its basis in this Court’s clearly established precedent, involves an issue of growing national attention, and will become an increasingly recurring issue—is as follows: Where there was evidence of a history of the defendant’s mental health issues and mental health hospitalization and trial counsel failed to even initiate an investigation into the defendant’s mental health, including as it related to the alleged crime of murder and the defendant’s seemingly inculpatory post-arrest conduct successfully used against him at trial, did the First Circuit err in its cursory order denying a certificate of appealability on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? iii :