In a capital murder case focused on the circumstances of the decedent's death, where forensic evidence is known to comprise the State's main evidence, and where counsel's avowed strategy is to endorse the defendant's post-arrest description of events, does defense counsel perform deficiently when they "chose" not to consult with or utilize any forensic experts, even where forensic experts exist that would validate the defendant's account, when such a choice was premised on no investigation at all?

In a capital murder case, does defense counsel perform deficiently when they choose not to consult forensic experts without investigation, despite experts existing that could validate the defendant's account?