in Van Hook, we cannot hold that counsel did not timely investigate Mickey’s childhood. Mickey also claims, as Van Hook did, that his counsel did not conduct a sufficiently broad investigation of his childhood. Van Hook, 130 S.Ct. at 18-19. The Court in Van Hook disagreed with the petitioner, calling this a “gross distortion.” Id. at 18. Counsel, the Court recounted, conducted several interviews with four individuals — Van Hook’s mother and father, a caregiving aunt, and a fam sel who investigated family and life history, drug use, and mental state of defendant, “interviewed a number of witnesses suggested by [the defendant],” obtained various records, and compiled a client history conducted an adequate investigation); Babbitt v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, counsel’s investigation here was
holding investigation was not deficient in part because counsel hired an experienced death penalty investigator who conducted a thorough investigation into defendants history holding that the defendants were not liable for failing to perform the thorough professional investigation the plaintiff would have preferred holding that the trial counsels performance was constitutionally deficient where counsel made a limited investigation into the petitioners background did not prepare a social history of the petitioner and was not aware that he had been sexually abused and raped as a child holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc