Ayestas v. Davis

Issues: (1) Whether “prevailing professional norms” required counsel in a capital case to investigate potential mitigation evidence, including red flags for mental health and substance abuse, before the Supreme Court decided Wiggins v. Smith, Rompilla v. Beard and Porter v. McCollum—as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 10th Circuits have held, in conflict with the decision below; and (2) whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), a reasonable attorney would regard the pursuit of services to investigate a capital defendant’s mental health as “sufficiently important” under Ayestas v. Davis, when it is plausible that the failure to investigate that aspect of petitioner’s background on state postconviction review could, given substantial authority recognizing counsel’s duty to do so, excuse the procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.