expert was equivocal about the alleged brain damage and, at the time of the penalty phase of trial, the only indication of childhood sexual abuse was Sneed’s vague statement to a court-appointed psychiatrist during a competency evaluation, from which that psychiatrist diagnosed Sneed as grandiose and delusional. Therefore, the government asserts, the failure to discover or press these issues was not deficient performance, and, even if it were, Sneed cannot show prejudice in light of the totality of the evidence presented at the penalty phase. In two recent cases, the Supreme Court has clarified the parameters for measuring effectiveness based on counsel’s collection and presentation of mitigation evidence. Compare Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 447, 453, — L.Ed.2d — (2009) (<HOLDING>), with Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct.
holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel holding performance deficient because counsel did not even take the first step of interviewing witnesses or requesting records holding performance not deficient because counsel gathered a substantial amount of information and then made a reasonable decision not to pursue additional sources holding that the defendant could not show deficient performance if the evidence the defendant claims counsel should have sought to exclude was admissible holding that to demonstrate deficient performance a petitioner must show counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed a defendant by the sixth amendment