Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to pursue a theory of lack of intent due to intoxication and by not developing mitigating evidence, and did Alabama's capital sentencing scheme violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial?

1. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase by failing to pursue a theory that Mr. Rieber lacked the requisite intent for intentional homicide after being presented with evidence that Mr. Rieber was intoxicated and had no recollection of the offense ? 2. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase by failing to develop and present corroborating mitigating evidence of Mr. Rieber’s intoxication at the time of the offense? 3. Did Alabama’s capital sentencing scheme, which permitted judicial override of the jury’s sentencing verdict based on a judge’s independent factfinding , violate Mr. Rieber’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury?