counsel neither investigated nor presented evidence of the petitioner’s extreme poverty-ridden childhood and mental condition despite counsel’s awareness of those circumstances. Finding that counsel cannot rely on the petitioner as the sole source of information when investigating for mitigating evidence, the Sixth Circuit held that “counsel must make some effort at independent investigation in order to make a reasoned, informed decision as to [its] utility.” Id. at 596. Several other cases have followed this reasoning. See Coleman v. Mitchell, 268 F.3d 417, 449-53 (6th Cir.2001) (finding counsel acted unreasonably for failing to present evidence of petitioner’s horrific childhood, which included physical and psychological abuse); Skaggs v. Parker, 235 F.3d 261, 266-75 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Groseclose v. Bell, 130 F.3d 1161, 1169-71
holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence 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 where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial record clearly indicated that the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigators that counsel was presenting to this court on appeal holding trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of the appellants good conduct in prison