IN REPLYING TO HAMPTON V. RICHTER, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), TO A HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM BASED ON THE STATE'S UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF 28 USC §2254 (d) (4), CAN THE FEDERAL COURT "HYPOTHESIZE ABOUT POSSIBLE 'TACTICAL CHOICES'" TRIAL COUNSEL MIGHT HAVE MADE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN UNKNOWABLY DETERMINED BY THE STATE COURTS, IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (d)(2)?

IN APPLYING STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), TO A HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM BASED ON THE STATE'S UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF 28 USC §2254 (d) (4), CAN THE FEDERAL COURT "HYPOTHESIZE" ABOUT POSSIBLE "TACTICAL CHOICES" TRIAL COUNSEL MIGHT HAVE MADE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS WHICH ARE, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (d) (4), UNREBUTTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IN THE STATE COURT RECORD?

IN APPLYING WIGGINS V. SMITH, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), TO A HABEAS CORPUS CLAIM BASED ON THE STATE'S UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND IN VIOLATION OF 28 USC §2254 (d) (4), QUESTIONS ABOUT A DEFENDANT'S MENTAL CONDITION "TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN REVIEWING THE RECORD" INCLUDE:

DOES THE RECORD SUGGEST THAT THE DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE? IF SO, IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF HIS OR HER ACT OR OF BELIEVING THAT THE ACT WAS MORALLY WRONG?

IF SO, WHY DID HE OR SHE ENTER A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY?

IF DEFENDANT HAD A COURT TRIAL AT THE SANITY PHASE, DID HE OR SHE ISSUE, CALLY WAIVE THAT TRIAL ON THE QUESTION OF SANITY?

IF THE RECORD SUGGESTS THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS "UNCONSCIOUS" AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, DID THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCT SUA SPONTE ON UNCONSCIOUSNESS AS A DEFENSE?

Whether the federal court can 'hypothesize' about possible 'tactical choices' trial counsel might have made on the basis of facts that were unreasonably determined by the state courts, in violation of 28 USC § 2254(d)(1)