Does AEDPA's "unreasonable determination of the facts" clause contemplate that materially inadequate state court fact-finding processes can satisfy § 2254(d)(2), or did the statute silently overrule decades of this Court's precedents requiring that the state's habeas proceedings be full and fair? And as it pertains to the prejudice prong of the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which Crockett based principally on the compelling and unrefuted affidavits of three independent experts, did the Fourth Circuit err when it upheld the state and district courts' denial of habeas relief—decisions themselves premised on the supposed inconclusiveness of those expert affidavits—when no court to date has held even so much as an evidentiary hearing to allow for full factual development of the claim in the first place?

Does AEDPA's 'unreasonable determination of the facts' clause contemplate that materially inadequate state court fact-finding processes can satisfy § 2254 (d)(2), or did the statute silently overrule decades of this Court's precedents requiring that the state's habeas proceedings be full and fair?