In a capital murder case, does defense counsel perform deficiently when they choose not to consult forensic experts without investigation, despite experts existing that could validate the defendant's account?

This Court has made clear that competent criminal defense counsel are free to make strategic decisions to end lines of inquiry as part of reasonable trial preparation. But the Court has also emphasized that “strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable” only “to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.” Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 690–91 (1984) . The question presented is: In a capital murder case focused on the circumstances of the decedent’s death, where forensic evidence is known to comprise the State’s main evidence, and where counsel’s avowed strategy is to endorse the defendant’s post -arrest description of events, does defense counsel perform deficiently when they “chose” not to consult with or utilize any forensic experts, even where forensic experts exist that would validate the defendant’s account , when such a choice was premised on no investigation at all?