ought to have sought advice on this issue, not merely inferred that their experts would support their decision. Defense counsel are not required to consult an expert every time they seek to submit documentary evidence. Such a standard would be absurd. They may generally rely -on their own judgment regarding the submission of exhibits. However, Strickland presents a fact- and case-specific test. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (noting that Strickland “of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the evidence,” as each mitigation case is unique (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 308, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 120 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992))); Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 394, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>), And this is no ordinary piece of evidence.
holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated recognizing the supreme courts holding in ferber holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees recognizing the supreme courts longstanding jurisdiction over writs of prohibition and mandamus to courts of inferior jurisdiction recognizing the supreme courts longstanding easebycase approach to determining whether an attorneys performance was unconstitutionally deficient under stricklmd v washington