1. Where a capital sentencing jury hears only a brief, conclusory, second-hand allusion to childhood abuse and neglect, can detailed, graphic accounts of a capital defendant's horrifying upbringing, "filled with abuse and privation," and a new expert diagnosis of PTSD based on that evidence, reasonably be considered cumulative of the trial evidence and, if so, is the new evidence properly deemed inconsequential in assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)?

2. Does 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) allow federal courts to rubberstamp a state court's denial of relief without regard to the state court's unreasonable application of governing Supreme Court law and unreasonably wrong findings of fact?

Whether new mitigating evidence of a capital defendant's horrific childhood abuse and PTSD diagnosis can be considered cumulative and inconsequential under Strickland