Wessinger v. Vannoy

Issues: (1) Whether, when a state post-conviction court refuses a request for funds to conduct a mitigation investigation in a death penalty case, counsel nevertheless has a duty to investigate mitigation evidence; (2) whether a state court’s denial of capital post-conviction counsel’s request for funds to conduct a mitigation investigation constitutes “cause” to overcome procedural default when the denial operated as an objective factor external to the defense, and impeded the development and presentation of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial counsel claim during the state-court proceedings; and (3) whether a state court’s denial of capital post-conviction counsel’s request for funds to conduct a mitigation investigation renders the available state corrective process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii), such that state-court exhaustion of a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on the results of such an investigation is not required.