Opinion ID: 219723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel in Investigation, Preparation and Presentation of Penalty Phase Evidence

Text: Petitioner argues that trial counsel were ineffective for: (1) failing to adequately diagnose and demonstrate the severity of Petitioner's EED and mental health conditions; (2) failing to investigate, discover and present a variety of mitigating facts relating to both Petitioner's and his family's histories, to wit, evidence of mental illness in Petitioner's family; alcoholism in Petitioner's family; Petitioner's own alcohol and drug abuse, which indicated a possibility of brain damage; and vast amount of non-statutory mitigating evidence relevant to Petitioner's upbringing and character. ( See App. at 456, Rep. and Recommendation.) Petitioner further claims that [c]ounsel were also ineffective in failing to try to present [additional mitigation] testimony in the penalty phase ... even though the trial judge had excluded the same testimony in the culpability phase. (Br. of Pet'r at 41.) Petitioner argues that because [m]itigation must be offered to the jury[,] counsel ha[d] a duty to present it, and that, [o]pting not to try to represent this evidence ... amounted to deficient performance. ( Id. at 42.) The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution dictate that the sentencer in a capital case may not be precluded from considering any relevant circumstances as a mitigating factor. Carter, 218 F.3d at 594 (citing Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988)). Evidence appropriate for admission as [m]itigating evidence includes any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. Id. (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have, therefore, emphasized that a thorough and complete mitigation investigation is absolutely necessary in capital cases. Dickerson v. Bagley, 453 F.3d 690, 693 (6th Cir.2006). Capital defense counsel has an affirmative duty to pursue mitigation evidence and to conduct an appropriate investigation into potential mitigating factors. Lundgren, 440 F.3d at 770. As such, investigations into mitigating evidence should comprise efforts to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence and evidence to rebut any aggravating evidence that may be introduced by the prosecutor. Id. at 771 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because it is undisputed that [a] petitioner has a right  indeed, a constitutionally protected right  to provide the jury with ... mitigating evidence, Carter, 218 F.3d at 594, and because the extent of admissible mitigation evidence is sweeping, notwithstanding the deference Strickland requires, neither this [C]ourt nor the Supreme Court has hesitated to deem deficient counsel's failure to fulfill this obligation. Harries, 417 F.3d at 637. a. Evidence of Petitioner's EED and Mental Health In the instant appeal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner asserts that his trial counsel were ineffective in preparing Dr. Lee Chutkow, the psychologist who evaluated Petitioner and testified at trial. Due to counsel's deficiencies, Petitioner argues, Dr. Chutkow's diagnosis did not reflect the seriousness of Petitioner's mental disorders, and Petitioner was prejudiced during the mitigation phase of trial. To assess Petitioner's mental health, Petitioner's trial counsel hired both a psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist to evaluate Petitioner in advance of trial. Only Dr. Chutkow, the psychiatrist, provided a relevant diagnosis. Dr. Chutkow met with Petitioner several times to question Petitioner about his personal history, and his relationship with his wife and family. Dr. Chutkow also spoke with Petitioner's mother. Based on these evaluations, Dr. Chutkow diagnosed Petitioner with adjustment disorder and alcohol abuse. ( See App. at 467-68, Rep. and Recommendation.) Petitioner's habeas counsel hired a psychologist, Robert Smith, Ph.D., to evaluate Petitioner's mental health, and to assess the reliability of Dr. Chutkow's diagnosis which was presented at Petitioner's trial. ( See id. at 3709-808, Tr. of Hr'g 7/19/2006.) At an evidentiary hearing held before the magistrate judge on July 19, 2006, Petitioner's habeas counsel questioned Dr. Smith regarding the sufficiency of Dr. Chutkow's examination and diagnosis. Dr. Smith explained that in his professional opinion, in diagnosing Petitioner it was important to identify corroborating data regarding the characteristics of an individual's behavior and use of alcohol and other drugs to confirm the information that's provided by David Matthews. ( Id. at 3719.) The diagnosing psychologist in Petitioner's case was tasked with trying to determine if information from the defendant is reliable, what you look for are consistencies ... what you are looking for is overlaps ... recognizing that that data then is likely to be valid and reliable. ( Id. at 3720.) Therefore, explained Dr. Smith, the important thing in reaching a diagnosis would be to have [family] history because historical data becomes very important about the progression of a disorder; family history, because again, genetic influences can be important. ( Id. at 3719.) Dr. Smith concluded that [he] did not believe that Dr. Chutkow's diagnosis was reliable, ( id. at 3717), because the material that [Dr. Chutkow] had was limited. He did not have information from family. He did not do a detailed history of David Matthews' use of alcohol and other drugs beginning in childhood through adolescence and into adulthood. So as a result, he didn't have the information to make a reliable diagnosis. ( Id. at 3717-18.) In reaching his own diagnosis, Dr. Smith did a full history of David Matthews' family, asking about each family member who may have used or abused alcohol or other drugs. Then went through his entire life. Asking about his use of different substances at different times, looking for patterns of use, and looking for any indications of progression. Then looked at his testing results ... from... Dr. Chutkow, medical records for David Matthews and family members. Affidavits of family members and friends, and a number of court documents. ( Id. at 3718-19.) Based on these inquiries, Dr. Smith made two primary diagnoses regarding Petitioner's condition at the time of the crimes. ( See id. at 3721.) He diagnosed Petitioner with substance dependence, alcohol dependence, [and] amphetamine abuse, as well as narcissistic personality disorder. ( Id. ) Petitioner contends that Dr. Smith's more severe diagnoses are more accurate reflections of Petitioner's mental health at the time of the crimes than were Dr. Chutkow's. Although Dr. Smith testified before the magistrate judge regarding the inadequacies of Dr. Chutkow's diagnosis and trial testimony, ( see id. at 3717-21, Tr. of Hr'g 7/19/2006), in his deposition, Mr. Busse, one of Petitioner's trial counsel, stated that contrary to Dr. Smith's assertion, Dr. Chutkow did numerous tests ... and then he did several follow-up reviews of Mr. Matthews ... [and that Dr. Chutkow is] a very competent ... very strong psychiatrist. And he testified to what he believed was accurate and true to the best of his knowledge. ( Id. at 3851, Busse Dep.) Busse also explained that notwithstanding critiques of Dr. Chutkow's examination two decades after the fact, not only did Dr. Chutkow [do] a thorough and complete exam, ( id. at 3884), but Petitioner's defense team were limited in their options for experts in Petitioner's trial because in 1981, psychiatrists were not signing up all over Jefferson County[, Kentucky] to testify in death penalty cases. ( Id. at 3919.) Petitioner's contentions that his trial counsel were ineffective in choosing Dr. Chutkow to evaluate him and testify at trial, and that Dr. Chutkow's clinical methodology was legally insufficient, are unavailing. We have stated that [c]ounsel's diligence in obtaining not just the constitutionally mandated single mental health expert, but two mental health experts, as did counsel in this case, shows that counsel engaged in a reasonable investigation into Petitioner's mental state at the time of the crimes. Lundgren, 440 F.3d at 772. Furthermore, [t]o the extent that Petitioner's argument can be framed as one impugning the competency of the [psychiatrist] retained to assist trial counsel, Petitioner's argument has little merit. Id. We explained in Lundgren that [t]he Constitution does not require that an indigent criminal defendant be able to retain the expert of his choosing, only that a competent expert be made available, and that [a] licensed practitioner is generally held to be competent, unless counsel has good reason to believe to the contrary. Id. Therefore, because there is no evidence in the record challenging Dr. Chutkow's competence and credentials, Petitioner's argument that counsel's choice and preparation of Dr. Chutkow were ineffective, fails. b. Mitigation Investigation and Presentation Petitioner also argues that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate, discover and present a variety of mitigating facts relating to Petitioner's and his family's histories, to wit, evidence of mental illness in Petitioner's family; prevalence of alcoholism in Petitioner's family; Petitioner's own alcohol and drug abuse; and a vast amount of non-statutory mitigating evidence relevant to Petitioner's upbringing and character. To evaluate whether counsel's investigation was deficient, we compare the net effect of the undiscovered and unpresented evidence, viewed cumulatively, Morales v. Mitchell, 507 F.3d 916, 936 (6th Cir.2007), with the evidence trial counsel [discovered and] presented on Petitioner's behalf. Haliym, 492 F.3d at 708. i. Omitted Evidence To demonstrate that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to sufficiently investigate and present mitigation evidence, Petitioner presents affidavits from several individuals personally acquainted with him, and his life prior to the crimes. The affiants include: Rita Baete, Petitioner's first cousin; Beverly Higdon, Petitioner's younger sister; Barbara Kaegin, Laverne Matthews' friend, and Petitioner's childhood babysitter; Jerry Matthews, Petitioner's brother; Linda Matthews, Jerry Matthews' wife, and Petitioner's sister-in-law; Anna Rose Seward, Laverne's sister, and Petitioner's aunt; Brenda Mattingly, Petitioner's first cousin; Anthony Wayne Matthews, Petitioner's son; Judy Kay Carrier, Petitioner's girlfriend from the fall of 1974 through the summer of 1975, and the mother of one of Petitioner's children; and Laverne Matthews. The affiants each averred facts regarding the categories of mitigating evidence that Petitioner contends his trial counsel failed to discover and present at the trial's penalty phase. Many of the affiants also testified, and were cross-examined, at an evidentiary hearing regarding Petitioner's habeas petition held before the magistrate judge. ( See App. at 3334-809, Evidentiary Hr'g 7/7/2000.) Several individuals who affirmed that they would have been willing to testify at Petitioner's trial, provided evidence regarding the history of mental illness in Petitioner's family. Rita Baete explained that her mother, Petitioner's maternal aunt, was severely mentally ill for many years, that her mother heard voices, experienced delusions, and was hospitalized many times over the years because of her mental illness. ( Id. at 3941, Baete Aff.) Furthermore, Baete indicated that she perceived personality traits in other family members ... similar to [those of her mother].... Specifically, ... Margaret Laverne Matthews, Anna Rose Seward... Roger Wayne Matthews and Beverly Matthews Higdon act[ed] at times like [her] mother did. [And that m]any people in [the] family ha[d] `short fuses,' and experience[d] serious episodic mood swings. ( Id. ) Beverly Higdon also detailed the history of mental illness in Petitioner's family. Specifically, she listed the following incidents: (1) maternal uncle, William Beard committed suicide; (2) Grandfather Beard's sister committed suicide; (3) Timothy Ray Matthews, [Petitioner's] son committed suicide at the age of seventeen; (4) maternal aunt ... was hospitalized and treated for mental illness; and (5) she was hospitalized in 1980 at Our Lady of Peace Hospital and treated for Depressive Neurosis as well as habitual excessive drinking. ( Id. at 3946, Higdon Aff.) Petitioner's brother, Jerry Matthews, also averred that he thought [his] brother Roger Wayne ha[d] mental problems, and that Wayne [wa]s a strange person. He d[id] not know how to have a relationship with anyone. ( Id. at 3980, Jerry Matthews Aff.) Further, Jerry Matthews stated that [he] believe[d] that [his] mother ha[d] mental problems. ( Id. at 3981.) Finally, Petitioner's aunt, Anna Rose Seward, stated that she believe[d] that depression runs in her family. ( Id. at 3988, Seward Aff.) Petitioner also contends that the affidavits illuminate that alcoholism was prevalent in his family, and that his trial counsel failed to uncover these readily-available mitigating facts, thereby preventing the jury from learning about this significant mitigating fact to his detriment. Regarding Petitioner's family's alcoholism, Baete stated that Margaret Laverne [Matthews] was an alcoholic. [That Baete's] mother... told her before she died that Laverne had drunk (sic.) alcohol when she was pregnant with her children. ( Id. at 3942-43, Baete Aff.) Baete further averred that [w]henever Laverne came to visit ... she brought her beer for herself to drink.... [Baete] remember[ed] seeing Laverne and [her boyfriend] Lenny together, staggering down a public street, drunk.... [Baete's] own father used to drink, and when he was drunk he would get violent. ( Id. at 3943-44.) Moreover, Petitioner's sister, Beverly Higdon summarized her family's history of alcoholism as follows: (1) [her] father, Ernest Matthews went from corner to corner patronizing bars; (2) [her] mother Laverne Matthews was an alcoholic; (3) Grandfather Beard drank daily; (4) [her] brothers Wayne, Jerry and David drank frequently; (5) [her] maternal uncle, William Beard was an alcoholic; (6) [she] was hospitalized at Our Lady of Peace in 1980 for treatment for alcoholism. ( Id. at 3945-46, Higdon Aff.) Barbara Kaegin also maintained that Laverne Matthews, David Matthews' mother drank all the time. ( Id. at 3977, Kaegin Aff.) Jerry Matthews also discussed the prevalence of alcoholism in his family. He stated that Laverne, his mother, was a binge drinker.... Sometimes [Laverne] would use the rent money for alcohol and [his] Grandmother would have to pay the rent. [Over time, Laverne's] drinking spells got progressively longer, and eventually they were forced to move[] to [his] Grandma Beard's house because of Laverne's drinking. ( Id. at 3979, Jerry Matthews Aff.) Jerry Matthews' wife Linda further reinforced that Laverne Matthews drank. Mainly binge drinking. ( Id. at 3983, Linda Matthews Aff.) Laverne's sister, Anna Rose Seward, also stated that [w]hile [her children] were away at school during the day, Laverne would drink beer all day long. [Laverne] also drank heavily with her paramour Lenny. ( Id. at 3984, Seward Aff.) Petitioner further argues that his trial attorneys failed to discover and present details of his own alcohol and drug abuse. On this issue, Rita Baete stated that she remember[ed] seeing David Matthews drinking alcohol from around the time he was fifteen or sixteen years old. [She] wasn't around him a lot, but when [she] did see him, he would be drunk. ( Id. at 3943, Baete Aff.) Similarly, Barbara Kaegin stated that [d]uring the year or two before the murders, David Matthews drank all of the time. David Matthews always had a beer in his hand.... David Matthews never drank on the barge when he worked but would take up drinking as soon as he got home from one of the trips. ( Id. at 3977, Kaegin Aff.) Furthermore, Kaegin recounted that on one occasion [Petitioner] tried to obtain Valium from her. ( Id. ) Petitioner's brother, Jerry Matthews, also discussed Petitioner's drinking and drug use in his affidavit. Jerry Matthews observed that after Petitioner's debilitating arm injury, Petitioner became a `rouser' doing a lot of drinking ... [and] became accustomed to taking drugs due to the many pain medications he was taking after his injury. ( Id. at 3980, Jerry Matthews Aff.) Jerry Matthews elaborated that [Petitioner's] drinking became more severe after his divorce from his first wife. ( Id. at 3981.) Judy Kay Carrier, Petitioner's ex-girlfriend, further attested that [Petitioner] drank alcohol a lot. He would wake up in the morning with a beer bottle in his hand, and drink all day ... he would drink until he passed out. ( Id. at 3996, Carrier Aff.) Carrier further stated that she saw [Petitioner] take pills when [they] were together. [However, she] didn't know what kind of pills they were. ( Id. ) Finally, the affiants discussed Petitioner's upbringing and character in some detail. Rita Baete provided information regarding Petitioner's childhood. She stated that Petitioner's [g]randma acted like a mother to [Petitioner and his siblings as children] because Laverne could not. At times, the Matthews kids were pounded with a lot of verbal abuse.... [And, she] never saw anyone hug the Matthews kids. ( Id. 3942, Baete Aff.) Baete also explained that [Petitioner's] father, Ernest, was never, ever in the family home or considered part of the family. ( Id. at 3943.) However, Baete stated that in spite of the adversity, [she] remember[ed] David Matthews to have been a good boy. When Grandma Beard was dying ... [Petitioner] would come over with big hugs for Grandma Beard. He would sit beside her and hold her hand. He would make her feel she was loved. ( Id. ) Beverly Higdon recounted aspects of Petitioner's childhood. She stated that she and Petitioner didn't have a happy family at home. ( Id. at 3946, Higdon Aff.) Her family lived in the Park Hill Projects, and [her] father Ernest Matthews deserted the family when [she] was an infant and [Petitioner] was about 22 months old. ( Id. at 3945.) Jerry Matthews further elaborated on these same subjects, stating, [his] parents got divorced... [and his] father, Ernest Matthews, was not allowed to see his children. ( Id. at 3979, Jerry Matthews Aff.) Over an approximately five year period during his and Petitioner's childhood, [Laverne] would be absent for the home for quite a few hours; leaving the children by themselves. [Laverne] would be out drinking. ( Id. ) Jerry Matthews also discussed Petitioner's arm injury's effect on Petitioner's personality: [Petitioner's] personality changed a great deal after a severe arm injury in 1968. His right arm was shorter than his left arm and the use of the arm was limited. Before the injury, [Petitioner] was a family man. [Petitioner] was a hard worker. He could take an old house in the west end, one sadly in need of repairs, and you wouldn't know it was the same house in a month or two. After the accident, he had to take whatever work he could get. ( Id. at 3980.) Linda Matthews' affidavit included statements praising Petitioner's character. She stated that David Matthews could be the most likable, sweetest person. He was great with [her] kids. [Petitioner] was playful with the kids, picking them up and showing them attention. It was very shocking to [her] when [she] heard of his crimes. ( Id. at 3983, Linda Matthews Aff.) Laverne's sister, Anna Rose Seward, discussed her encounters with Petitioner as a child. All the Matthews kids would come over and visit [her], [her] husband and [their] kids.... [Petitioner] always helped with work around the house when he stayed over. ( Id. at 3987, Seward Aff.) Seward further stated that Ernie Matthews, [Petitioner's] father, was never in the picture as the children were growing up. ( Id. ) Nor, did [t]he Matthews children... receive consistent discipline or attention from Laverne. As a matter of fact ... [Laverne] left the disciplining of her children to her other children. ( Id. ) Finally, Seward discussed Petitioner's character, stating, [Petitioner] was a hard worker. [She] always remember[ed] him to have worked. He was reliable also. When he borrowed money from [her] to take on the barges (where he worked), he would always pay the money back as soon as he could. ( Id. ) Brenda Mattingly described her recollection of Petitioner's childhood as follows: [she] never saw Laverne hug or kiss her kids. She did not provide discipline or attention.... She would encourage her older kids to physically discipline the younger ones.... In [Petitioner's childhood home,] there was no stability. ( Id. 3989, Mattingly Aff.) However, Mattingly stated that [d]espite the way [Petitioner] was raised, [she] saw him treat his own kids [well].... He respected and loved his kids, and he never mistreated them. [She] ha[d] seen him feed and bathe his kids, and play with them. He gave them a lot of attention when he wasn't working. ( Id. at 3990.) Finally, Mattingly expressed that [a]s an adult, [she] remember[ed Petitioner] as a very hard worker. He was never one to just sit around. ( Id. ) Anthony Wayne Matthews, Petitioner's son, also discussed his father's character in his affidavit. He stated, [Petitioner] has always been very affectionate with [him], with big hugs. [They] have always had a good relationship. ( Id. at 3992, Anthony Wayne Matthews Aff.) Petitioner's son further explained that [Petitioner] taught... and all of his kids the importance of respecting other people, and that Petitioner never disciplined [his son] by hitting him. ( Id. at 3992-93.) Finally, Petitioner's son recounted that [w]hen [he] was growing up, [Petitioner] tried to spend as much time with [him] as he could.... At one point after [Anthony Wayne Matthews'] parents were separated, ... [Petitioner] would drive sixty miles ... out ... to spend time with [him] and then sixty miles back. ( Id. at 3993.) With [Petitioner], explained Anthony Wayne Matthews, if it was anything within reason, [Petitioner] would give [his son] whatever [his son] asked for. [Petitioner had] never been selfish. ( Id. at 3994.) ii. Discovered Evidence At trial, Petitioner was represented by a team of two assistant public defenders, David Busse, a member of the bar for six years at the time of trial, and Christopher Rivers, a member of the bar for three years at the time of trial. To prepare for Petitioner's trial, in addition to interviewing Petitioner on numerous occasions, counsel had Petitioner examined by two experts, a psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist, and interviewed thirty-three individuals, including, among others, Petitioner's family, friends and neighbors: Bernice Brown, Laverne's neighbor; Marion Smokey Brown, Laverne's neighbor; Larry Cruse, Marlene's brother, and Magdalene's son; Lawrence Cruse, Marlene's father, and Magdalene's husband; Carol Engel; Beverly Higdon, Petitioner's sister; Sherry McMichael, Larry Cruse's wife; Ray McMichael, Sherry McMichael's father; Laverne; Roger Wayne Matthews, Petitioner's brother; Linda Morgan, Marlene's neighbor; Eddie Peltier, Petitioner's friend; Elaine Peltier, Eddie's wife; Lenny Perry, Laverne's boyfriend; and Murray Turner, Petitioner's family attorney. [6] Petitioner's defense team inquired into a family history of mental illness as a potential mitigating factor. In her interview, Beverly Higdon told interviewers that she underwent psychiatric treatment concerning the death of one of her own [children]. ( Id. at 4123, Higdon Interview Notes.) The interviewees also discussed the alcoholism in Petitioner's family. Laverne, in particular, explained that she had drinking problems when Petitioner was growing up, stating, God knows I have drunk in my time, and that [Petitioner] and Marlene had marital troubles. ( Id. at 464, Rep. and Recommendation.) The interviewees were more forthcoming in their descriptions of Petitioner's drug and alcohol abuse. Specifically, Petitioner's long-time friend and drinking buddy, Eddie Peltier, stated that he and Petitioner spent the afternoon and evening before the shootings drinking at a local park, that Petitioner was a belligerent drunk, and that when Petitioner drank he would not stop [drinking] till he was passed out. ( Id. at 4135, Eddie Peltier Interview Notes.) Carol Engel, recounted that Petitioner acted different the night before the murders, that Petitioner was hyper or nervous or something. ( Id. at 4118, Engel Interview Notes.) Engel stated that the evening before the murders, at [the] park, [Petitioner] was drinking heavily, that [she] gave [Petitioner] two [V]aliums that evening, and that Petitioner had a bottle of pills and offered some to [her]. ( Id. at 4117-18.) Larry Cruse told investigators that Petitioner drank a case of beer a day, ( id. at 4114, Larry Cruse Interview Notes), and Beverly Higdon stated that at the time, Petitioner was using pills ... to work the doubleshift. ( Id. at 4123, Higdon Interview Notes.) Smokey Brown, Laverne's next-door neighbor, also discussed Petitioner's drinking and alcohol use. He stated that he did not know Petitioner too well. But he stated that the night before the killings he took Petitioner to get some beer, and that Petitioner took some of Brown's medication that evening. ( Id. at 463-44, Rep. and Recommendation.) Defense counsel also made inquiries regarding Petitioner's character and upbringing. Beverly Higdon described Petitioner's relationship with his estranged father, and his education. Higdon also stated that Petitioner care[d] about [his] children, and that when [Petitioner] stayed on her farm and cared for [her] kids and farm while [she] was away, he did an impeccable job caring for both the children and the farm. ( Id. ) Laverne described Petitioner's relationship with his estranged father, Ernest Matthews, explaining that although she divorced [Petitioner's] father [in] 1952 [when Petitioner] was 5 years old [Petitioner was] close to [his] father. ( Id. at 4123, Laverne Matthews Interview Notes.) Laverne also stated regarding Petitioner's upbringing, that the family spent time living in the projects, and that Petitioner completed eighth grade when he was fifteen, at which point he went to work at [the] icehouse. ( Id. ) The interviewees also discussed Petitioner's relationship with Marlene. Brown stated that he knew that Petitioner worked and had family problems. Glen Murray Turner, the family attorney, testified regarding the warrants Marlene swore out against Petitioner. He stated that Marlene often swore warrants out against Petitioner, and then bailed him out. ( Id. at 463-44, Rep. and Recommendation.) Laverne further discussed Petitioner's domestic difficulties, including the tensions between the Matthews and Cruse families, and their effect on Petitioner. She stated that Mr. Cruse carried a gun all the time [be]cause he was a security guard ... [that Petitioner] was totally afraid of him, and that Laverne had to have her phone [number] changed 3 times because of harassing phone calls from the Cruses' [house]. ( Id. at 4129, Laverne Matthews Interview Notes.) She further told Petitioner's defense team that Marlene took out warrants against Petitioner, and on earlier charges by Marlene Marlene had had the family car sold and the money used to post [Petitioner's] bond on Marlene's charge against him. ( Id. ) Moreover, Laverne recounted that Marlene would take drugs ... and would spend all [of] her money, so that [Petitioner's] mother would have to buy groceries for the children. ( Id. ) Laverne also stated that Marlene treated Petitioner badly, that at times Marlene [would be] out on [the] street in front of [the] house [and] would give [Petitioner] dirty looks. ( Id. ) Petitioner's brother, Roger Wayne Matthews, similarly stated that [Laverne] talked about Marlene's harassing [Petitioner by] constantly walking up and down in [] front of the house, [M]arlene flipping her but[t] at him, lik[e] here it is, you ain't with me, you know `sexual aggravation.' ( Id. at 4132, Roger Wayne Matthews Interview Notes.) The victims' relatives, Lawrence Cruse, Larry Cruse, Sherry McMichael, and Raymond McMichael, also stated that Petitioner was crazy but not insane. ( Id. at 463-44, Rep. and Recommendation.) In their depositions, Petitioner's trial counsel further reinforced that contrary to Petitioner's assertion in his habeas petition, his defense team discovered and utilized a substantial amount of the information at issue. Mr. Busse, one of Petitioner's trial counsel, stated that [much] of these affidavits [presented in support of Petitioner's habeas petition were] talking about family problems, a history of alcoholism, things that [Dr.] Chutkow already knew. ( Id. at 3876, Busse Dep.) Busse further stated that [m]uch of that family history ... came into the trial anyway... the problems with the mother, the problems with the [] wife, ( id. ), as did the fact that the victim had previously sworn out warrants and dropped them against Mr. Matthews, and his drinking history. ( Id. at 3901.) iii. Analysis Petitioner argues that Matthews' lawyers or investigators contacted almost thirty people, but they unreasonably curtailed their mitigation investigation. (Br. of Pet'r at 23.) Counsel's constitutional duty to investigate a defendant's background in preparation for the sentencing phase of a capital trial is well[] established. Harries, 417 F.3d at 637. The Supreme Court has stated that strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In assessing whether counsel unreasonably curtailed their mitigation investigation this Court has held that: counsel's failure to make a reasonable investigation of a defendant's psychiatric history and family background, and to present mitigating evidence to the jury at sentencing, can constitute ineffective assistance. In assessing whether a defendant's counsel was ineffective at the mitigation hearing for failing to introduce certain evidence, the focus must be on whether the investigation supporting counsel's decision not to introduce mitigating evidence of the defendant's background was itself reasonable. Clark v. Mitchell, 425 F.3d 270, 284 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 522-23, 527, 123 S.Ct. 2527). Even in the unique context of mitigation, [a]n attorney is not expected to follow up on every possible avenue of inquiry regardless of how improbable it is that that avenue would lead to useful evidence. Haliym, 492 F.3d at 712. Reasonably diligent counsel may draw a line when they have good reason to think further investigation would be a waste. Lundgren, 440 F.3d at 772-73. Yet, in examining the investigation that counsel made, a court must not consider only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel, but also whether the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further. Haliym, 492 F.3d at 712 (citing Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527, 123 S.Ct. 2527). Petitioner's trial counsel engaged in a significant amount of preparation for Petitioner's trial. Although trial counsel did not discover all of the details revealed in Petitioner's habeas counsel's investigation, they did interview thirty-three individuals acquainted with Petitioner and his crimes. Moreover, in preparing for trial, they inquired after a broad range of potential mitigation issues, including, Petitioner's relationships with the victims, his familial and social relationships, his alcohol and substance abuse, his upbringing, as well as other significant events in his life. Counsel's investigative efforts disclosed significant information on every one of the categories of their alleged ineffective preparation. A comparison of the lists of individuals interviewed by Petitioner's defense team with those contacted by Petitioner's habeas counsel reveals that Petitioner's defense team contacted Petitioner's siblings, Beverly Higdon and Jerry Matthews, two of the ten people Petitioner alleges were overlooked, or whose testimony was underdeveloped. Furthermore, Petitioner's defense team considered two additional individuals contacted by Petitioner's habeas counsel. Petitioner's defense team attempted to interview his brother Jerry Matthews. However, Jerry provided defense investigators with limited information, and indicated that he wanted to stay out of it. (App. at 463-44, Rep. and Recommendation.) Additionally, while Anthony Wayne Matthews, Petitioner's son, was a competent adult by the time Petitioner's habeas counsel took his affidavits, he was a child at the time of Petitioner's trial. Anthony Wayne Matthews admitted that [a]t several times they had to remove [him] from the courtroom during the trial because he was crying, breaking down. ( Id. at 3674, Tr. of Hr'g 3/2/2006.) Anthony Wayne Matthews was thus hardly an ideal witness at the time of Petitioner's trial. The individuals interviewed by Petitioner's defense counsel also addressed each of the mitigation categories that Petitioner alleges his counsel failed to adequately investigate. They discussed Petitioner's drug and alcohol use, his tumultuous relationship with his wife, an arm injury he suffered and its effect on his personality and life, his good reputation within his family as a hard worker, his love for his children, and particular good deeds he performed for his sister and her children. ( See id. at 484, Rep. and Recommendation.) In assessing the significance of trial counsel's shortcomings, if any, we note that several of the witnesses identified in Petitioner's habeas petition had either refused to participate in the initial trial investigation, or testified during the trial and offered largely cumulative evidence on habeas. We have reject[ed] a requirement that any later-identified cumulative mitigating evidence must have been introduced in order for counsel to have been effective. Clark, 425 F.3d at 286. We further note that much of the information identified by Petitioner's habeas counsel would have been inadmissible hearsay. Several of the individuals identified by Petitioner's habeas counsel related second-hand information. We note, by way of example only, that Rita Baete admitted that she did not have any personal knowledge of the full extent of Laverne's drinking, or that Petitioner's brother, Roger Wayne Matthews, had mental difficulties that resulted his spending time in the stockade while in the army. ( See App. at 3591-92, Tr. of Hr'g 3/2/2006.) Linda Matthews, Jerry Matthews' wife, discussed that Petitioner had a lot of money when he came off the barges and [she] felt like Lavern[e] was taking advantage of that situation. ( Id. at 3360) However, Linda Matthews did not have personal information regarding whether Petitioner gave his mother money, rather her knowledge of that [came] through other people. ( Id. ) Similarly, Anna Rose Seward described Laverne's inflammatory statements to Petitioner regarding Marlene's behavior. However, Seward was not present when Laverne made the statements in question, and only heard about the incidents through others. ( See id. at 3629.) After comparing the undiscovered and the discovered evidence, we find, as aptly stated by the magistrate judge, that [a] review of [Petitioner's trial counsel's pretrial preparation] reveals that counsel's investigation was much more thorough than Petitioner portrays in his petition and supplemental brief. ( Id. at 460, Rep. and Recommendation.) We have found counsel ineffective for investigating significantly less than did Petitioner's counsel. See, e.g., Carter, 218 F.3d at 597 ([D]efense counsel made no investigation into [petitioner's] family, social or psychological background and that the failure to do so constituted representation at a level below an objective standard of reasonableness.); Hamblin v. Mitchell, 354 F.3d 482, 490-91 (6th Cir.2003) ([Counsel] did not obtain any family or social history nor did he contact any of [petitioner's] family members except ... the mother of [petitioner's] daughter.... Counsel also failed to gather any medical information, including psychological information on [petitioner].). Therefore, we do not find that Petitioner's counsel's preparation of mitigation evidence fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. In light of the information gleaned through their investigation, Petitioner's trial counsel decided that their strategy in both the culpability and penalty phases of trial would be to argue that Petitioner was suffering from extreme emotional disturbance when he killed his wife and mother-in-law. They determined at that time ... that [the] defense in the guilt phase had to be compatible with the defense in the penalty phase. And that was a strategic consideration that the attorneys and Mr. Matthews discussed [in determining their trial strategy] because [they] wanted to try to maintain credibility with the jury; that trust us in the guilt phase and that will carry over in the penalty phase. (App. at 3840, Busse Dep.) Therefore, Petitioner's trial counsel decided to present a defense of extreme emotional disturbance throughout the case with the hope of reducing the murder to manslaughter o[r] if that [was] unsuccessful, with the hope of carrying that through the penalty phase so that the jury would not find the death penalty because of the extreme emotional disturbance; that being, [Petitioner's] principal mitigating factor. ( Id. at 3853.) To that end, Petitioner's trial counsel maintained that they would have declined to present information at trial that in their estimation would have interfered with the viability of Petitioner's EED defense. For example, during his deposition, Busse, one of Petitioner's trial attorneys, was asked whether there [was] anything in what [Anna Rose Seward] ha[d] to offer in her affidavit that's inconsistent with the defense of EED ... or with any of the evidence that was presented in the penalty phase. ( Id. at 3877.) Busse replied that Seward was presenting some of the family history, and that can be useful or that can backfire. For instance, there's a statement [in her affidavit] that says, the Matthews children, including [Petitioner], did not receive discipline or attention from their mother. If you stand accused of a double murder telling a jury that it [is] somehow connected to the fact that the mother didn't have proper discipline ... I can't say whether ... that kind of thing would be beneficial or detrimental. It's a trial strategy. ( Id. ) Therefore, Petitioner's trial counsel determined that the EED defense would be the most effective defense, and pursued and presented information tending to demonstrate that Petitioner was operating under the influence of EED. We do not hesitate to find counsel ineffective for failing to adequately investigate mitigation evidence. See Harries, 417 F.3d at 637. We will not, however, second-guess the strategic choices of trial counsel if, as here, they were made after a thorough investigation. Haliym, 492 F.3d at 711. Where counsel performed an adequate mitigation investigation, we accord counsel's strategic trial decisions a heavy measure of deference. Id. at 712. [S]trategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable. Id. at 711 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052). In this case, after assessing the information they gleaned through their adequate mitigation investigation, Petitioner's counsel decided that arguing that Petitioner suffered from EED at the time he committed the crimes was the best mitigation strategy. Counsel made this strategic trial decision in light of the extensive information that they uncovered in their investigation. We decline to find that counsel performed ineffectively in making these strategic choices. Petitioner's trial counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence for the penalty phase of Petitioner's trial.