Terry King v. Bruce Westbrooks, 847 F.3d 788

Terry King was convicted of first-degree murder (death sentence) for the kidnapping and killing of Diana Smith; jury heard King's confessions and co-defendant statements.
At trial defense counsel Robert Simpson suggested intoxication in opening, but abandoned an intoxication theory after damaging testimony from Lori Carter describing a violent, seemingly deliberate assault by King on her.
Simpson retained psychiatrist Martin Gebrow shortly before trial (paid with private funds), sought but was denied an EEG motion at first; Gebrow recommended further testing but later testified an EEG was unnecessary.
Post-conviction and federal habeas proceedings produced competing expert opinions: some earlier experts were inconclusive about organic brain damage; later experts (Merikangas, Sadoff, Smith) opined King had brain damage and that intoxication plus damage impaired his capacity.
State courts (Tennessee Supreme Court) denied ineffective-assistance claims; federal district court dismissed King’s §2254 petition; Sixth Circuit granted COA on two issues and affirmed the denial of habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (King)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present intoxication evidence at guilt phase	Simpson unreasonably abandoned intoxication defense; severe intoxication would negate specific intent for first-degree murder	Simpson reasonably abandoned intoxication after Carter's devastating testimony and tactical judgment was reasonable	Counsel not deficient; no ineffective assistance (affirmed)
Whether counsel was ineffective for untimely investigation/retention of mental‑health experts (Dr. Gebrow)	Delay was unreasonable; timely experts would have shown brain damage and produced a different outcome	Even if retention was untimely (deficient), King cannot show prejudice because contemporaneous experts were inconclusive and later experts’ evidence is barred by AEDPA §2254(e)(2)	Delay was deficient, but no prejudice shown on available state‑court record; habeas relief denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (attorney performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (unreasonable ignorance of funding mechanisms and failure to obtain expert can be deficient performance)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (AEDPA deference limits review of new evidence)
Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (identifying the last reasoned state-court opinion for federal review)
Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525 (Sixth Circuit standard on reviewing Strickland prongs de novo when state court addressed only one prong)