counsel. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must prove: (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant resulting in an unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome. A court considering a claim of ineffective assistance must “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The defendant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. Id. (citing Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)); see also Nagi v. United States, 90 F.3d 130, 135 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The court must determine whether, in light of
holding that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected holding that counsels strategic decisions were hard to attack holding that state courts factual finding that counsel made a strategic decision not to investigate further a mental illness that if reasonable would make counsels investigation not deficient was reasonable under aedpa review holding that counsels failure to consult blood experts was not a strategic choice because counsel offered no reasoned explanation for the failure holding that counsels strategic decisions should be afforded wide latitude