was counseled concerning the possible repercussions of not introducing mitigation evidence, thereby enabling him to make any kind of informed, knowing decision on the matter. Counsel’s admissions on the record instead reflect that they simply failed to prepare a mitigation case because they did not expect a penalty phase to occur, and then, out of apparent apathy or neglect of duty, declined a continuance without an informed or strategic basis for doing so. It is prima facie ineffective assistance for counsel to “abandon[] their investigation of [the] petitioner’s background after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources.” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 524-25, 123 S.Ct. 2527; see also Siripongs v. Calderon, 35 F.3d 1308, 1316 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that counsel’s almost
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 it was incumbent upon counsel to renew his attempt to obtain the witness testimony and that by failing to do so defendant waived his request holding that by failing to move for continuance defendant waived relief under rule 16g  by not making timely efforts to mitigate or eliminate the prejudice caused by the prosecutors conduct holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that counsel performed deficiently by failing to conduct more than a cursory investigation and by making no attempt to humanize the defendant before the jury