somebody who is this type of person into the type of person that you are.” She then told the jury moments later, “If this isn’t a case that deserves the death penalty, who does? Who deserves it if this man does not?” Despite Cunningham’s counsel’s and the prosecutor’s statements that Cunningham had some type of mental deficiency, the jury did not have the benefit of expert testimony to provide direct evidence of such deficiencies. By suggesting a “causal nexus” between Cunningham’s abusive childhood and his crime, expert testimony could have “impacted] the quality and strength of the mitigation evidence” and offered a persuasive explanation of Cunningham’s crimes. State v. Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298, 160 P.3d 177, 201 (2007); see also Douglas v. Woodford, 316 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the testimony from Dr. Vicary
holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive holding state court unreasonably applied strickland test because counsels failure to investigate expert testimony which called into doubt the central forensic evidence linking the inmate to the crime was ineffective assistance and prejudicial to defendant holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses and to admit a third party outofcourt confession to the crime was prejudicial holding that counsels failure to present expert testimony explaining a possible causal link between defendants childhood and his crime was prejudicial holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses who would have supported the defendants version of events was prejudicial