Opinion ID: 3061862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counsel’s Duty to Investigate

Text: 3 We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1312 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In so doing, we will not reverse a district court’s credibility finding “unless it is contrary to the laws of nature, or is so inconsistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder could accept it.” United States v. Pineiro, 389 F.3d 1359, 1366 (11th Cir. 2004). 9 “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S. Ct. at 2066. “[A] particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” Id. “The reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions.” Id. “[W]hen a defendant has given counsel reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or even harmful, counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable.” Id.; see, e.g., Stewart v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 476 F.3d 1193, 1210-11 (11th Cir. 2007) (concluding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate client’s childhood abuse when client never told him about it and had “indicated just the opposite of poor treatment” (quotation marks and brackets omitted)).