police informant that was going to testify against him and his brother. The manner in which Davis committed these offenses was cold, callous, and demonstrated a complete disregard for the dignity of human life. The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing by Davis and the State proved beyond all doubt that Davis knew right from wrong, also that Davis was solely responsible for conceiving a chain of events that resulted in two completely innocent people being killed and another being seriously wounded. “Even if this Court were to find that Copeland’s investigation for mitigating evidence was not as extensive as his collateral counsel, Davis would not be entitled to relief because he has failed to prove he was prejudiced. See Boyd v. State, 746 So.2d 364, 379 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). “Davis’s allegation his trial counsel were
holding that counsel may well have made a reasonable tactical choice to not object to arguably inadmissible testimony holding that counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to pursue a particular mitigating factor where despite a reasonable investigation by counsel counsel was not put on notice of any such mitigating evidence holding that it is unnecessary for government employees to make an actual conscious decision regarding policy factors for it is irrelevant whether the alleged failure  was a matter of deliberate choice or a mere oversight holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding that even if the alleged failure to present mitigating evidence was an oversight and not a tactical choice by counsel it was harmless