In Ochoa v. Davis, the Ninth Circuit endorsed trial counsel's presentation of a "family sympathy" defense at the penalty phase of Sergio Ochoa's capital trial, even though counsel failed to conduct a thorough investigation of Ochoa's background before settling on this strategy. A thorough investigation of Ochoa's background and mental health would have revealed several categories of mitigating evidence that his jury should have heard: Ochoa has since been diagnosed with neuropsychological deficits and post-traumatic stress disorder, and further investigation revealed that he suffered from serious neglect and malnourishment in his earliest years. Does the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ochoa create a clear conflict with this Court's precedent in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), and Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), all of which compel that counsel conduct a thorough investigation of a capital defendant's background before settling on a penalty-phase strategy?

Whether the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ochoa v. Davis conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in Williams v. Taylor, Wiggins v. Smith, and Rompilla v. Beard regarding the requirement for counsel to conduct a thorough investigation of a capital defendant's background before settling on a penalty-phase strategy