Todd Wessinger, Petitioner v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden

1. Where a state post-conviction court refuses a request for funds to conduct a mitigation investigation in a death penalty case, does counsel nevertheless have a duty himself or herself to investigate mitigation evidence? 2. Does a state court’s denial of capital post-conviction counsel’s request for funds to conduct a mitigation investigation constitute “cause” to overcome procedural default where that denial operated as an objective factor external to the defense which impeded development and presentation of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim during the state court proceeding? 3. Does a state court’s denial of capital post-conviction counsel’s request for funds to conduct a mitigation investigation render the available state corrective process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii), such that state-court exhaustion of a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on the results of such an investigation is not required?