1. Whether a habeas court must articulate and apply prevailing professional norms in order to determine whether trial counsel's representation was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment?

2. When trial counsel failed to investigate mitigating evidence, whether a habeas court can adequately assess the lawyers' performance and determine the existence of prejudice from a deficient performance by relying only on counsel's post hoc representations that they exercised their professional judgment or that further investigation would not have changed the outcome of the trial?

3. Whether the standard for identifying prejudice under Strickland is a "preponderance of the evidence," as held in this case, or is "reasonable probability" as articulated by this Court in Strickland?

Whether a habeas court must articulate and apply prevailing professional norms to determine ineffective-assistance-of-counsel