Is an attorney constitutionally ineffective when he does not realistically convey to his client the consequences of failing to honor his plea agreement, and does not take reasonable steps to ensure he honors it, when the consequences are certain conviction and a near-certain death sentence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Robert Shawn Ingram was arrested along with three other men and charged with the murder of Gregory Huguley. After he was charged, he agreed to cooperate with the prosecutor’s investigation, gave statements implicating himself, and agreed to testify against Anthony Boyd. In exchange, he would receive a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. Before Mr. Boyd’s trial, Mr. Ingram was kept in jail with the other codefendants. One of them told the others that if none testified, they would all be acquitted. On the morning of Mr. Boyd’s trial, Mr. Ingram faced a choice that was not really a choice—testify against Mr. Boyd, avoid a trial, and have a chance to get out of prison—or refuse to testify, go to trial, assuredly be convicted based on his confession, and be sentenced to death. When he told his attorneys he didn’t want to testify against Mr. Boyd, they accurately told him he would go to trial, but they also told him he could be acquitted. They did not mention the 100% chance of his conviction—he had confessed to his role in the crime, and eyewitness statements corroborated his confession—and the near 100% chance he would receive a death sentence. They enlisted none of his relatives to convince him to follow through with the deal he made with prosecutors 18 months before. They did nothing to persuade him, and he did not testify. Meanwhile, one of the co-defendants, who also initially balked at testifying, was persuaded by his family to testify against Mr. Boyd. He received the benefit of his guilty plea and is now out of prison. After Mr. Boyd was convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Ingram was also tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. This series of events leads to the following question: Is an attorney constitutionally ineffective when he does not realistically convey to his client the consequences of failing to honor his plea agreement, and does not take reasonable steps to ensure he honors it, when the consequences are certain conviction and a nearcertain death sentence? During state post-conviction proceedings, the state court refused to grant Mr. Ingram funds for mental health experts. In federal habeas proceedings, he raised this issue as a due process violation. The District Court refused to consider the claim, and the Circuit Court denied a certificate of appealability, leading to this question: Is a denial of due process during state post-conviction proceedings cognizable in federal habeas corpus? i