friend Van Hook visited after the crime — and learned all about Van Hook’s childhood, including his drinking as a toddler, his parents’ alcoholism, his father’s domestic abuse, and his mental health issues. Counsel, therefore, did not need to “interview other family members-his step-sister, two uncles, and two aunts — as well as a psychiatrist who once treated his mother” because “there comes a point at which evidence from more distant relatives can reasonably be expected to be only cumulative, and the search for it distractive from more important duties.” Id. at 19. It “was not unreasonable for his counsel not to identify and interview every other living family member or every therapist who once treated his parents.” Id.; see Cox v. Ayers, 588 F.3d 1038, 1046, 1048-49 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Williams, 384 F.3d at 613-14 (holding that
holding that a defendant who seeks to retain private counsel must receive proper notice of the date by which counsel must enter his appearance holding that counsel who interviewed nine individuals conducted sufficient investiga tion holding that counsels motion was not sufficient where counsel alleged only that counsel and appellants positions had become adverse recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel