How should the 'one juror' standard of prejudice set forth in Wiggins v. Smith be applied where mitigation evidence would have led to both positive and negative evidence, and can a court presume every juror would reject positive evidence in favor of negative evidence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (CAPITAL CASE) 1. How should the “one juror” standard of prejudice set forth in Wiggins v. Smith be applied where the mitigation that counsel failed to investigate would have led to the development of both positive and negative evidence; can a court simply presume that every juror would have rejected the positive evidence in favor of the negative? 2. Under Brecht v. Abrahamson, where the prosecution bears the burden of proving harmless error, must a reviewing court consider the impact of the error on the proffered defense and did the Third Circuit wrongly substitute a Strickland prejudice standard where the defendant bears the burden of proof? i