to demonstrate actual prejudice. Given the brutal circumstances surrounding the murder of Lorraine Martelli and the overwhelming evidence of aggravation against Rodriguez, we are not persuaded that trial counsel’s failure to present the proposed mitigating evidence of child abuse materially affected the imposition of Rodriguez’ death sentence. See Andrews v. Collins, 21 F.3d 612, 624 (5th Cir.1994) (stating that, in light of evidence that defendant stood over victim and shot him directly in the forehead and that defendant altered bullet to cause more severe devastation on impact, defendant failed to show actual prejudice suffered from counsel’s alleged deficiency), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 908, 130 L.Ed.2d 790 (1995); Glass v. Blackburn, 791 F.2d 1165, 1170-71 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1042, 107 S.Ct. 1985,
holding that the defendant waived his opportunity to challenge a facially inconsistent verdict where he failed to raise the issue before the jurys discharge and rejecting the defendants argument that he did not have an opportunity to object when the verdict had been read aloud and the jury had been polled holding that where the evidence offered by the state and admitted by the trial court  whether erroneously or not  would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict the double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial holding that the jury would not have rendered a different verdict had mitigating evidence been offered because the murders were calculated and coldblooded and the victims suffered severe mental anguish both before and during the murders holding that jury may consider victims mental capacity in determining whether defendant acted with victims knowledge and consent holding that evidence of impaired mental functioning is inherently mitigating and that a defendant is not required to demonstrate a nexus between his mental capacity and the crime committed