n. 5 (Carnes, J., dissenting). Thus, even though trial counsel’s own interactions with Petitioner did not alert them to potential mental health issues, Mr. Celia and Mr. Schuster were aware of Petitioner’s own statement to Dr. Dudley suggesting that he occasionally exhibited odd, uncooperative, and testy behavior. This information, too, should have alerted trial counsel to the presence of a potential mental health issue deserving further evaluation, especially since Petitioner’s behavior in this instance was so uncharacteristic of what they had come to understand as his normal behavior. Trial counsel’s decision to ignore the information instead and limit their investigation was not supported by reasonable professional judgment. See Ford v. Hall, 546 F.3d 1326, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner’s trial counsel also failed to
holding that the brady rule encompasses evidence known only to police investigators but not the prosecutor holding impeachment evidence was not merely cumulative where the withheld evidence was of a different character than evidence already known to the defense holding that in evaluating the reasonableness of an investigationinto mitigating circumstances a court must consider not only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel but also whether the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further holding that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence