been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We have held that, to be deemed competent, a defense attorney must, “at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling him to make informed decisions about how best to represent his client.” Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1456 (9th Cir.1994) (emphasis in original); see also Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1011(9th Cir.2002); Johnson v. Baldwin, 114 F.3d 835, 840 (9th Cir.1997). Thus, an attorney’s performance is constitutionally and unreasonably deficient when he “neither conduetts] a reasonable investigation nor ma[kes] a showing of strategic reasons for failing to do so.” Sanders, 21 F.3d at 1456; see also Phillips v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966, 980 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Harris v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432, 1435-36 (9th
holding that counsels performance was deficient for failing to investigate readily available evidence of mental impairment holding pcr was properly denied where the applicant did not prove he was prejudiced by trial counsels deficient performance in failing to preserve an issue at trial holding that an attorneys performance was deficient because he failed to investigate and reasonably select the   defense used at trial holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel holding counsels failure to investigate alibi witness and eyewitnesses to the crime amounted to constitutionally deficient performance