context: Such findings would have served as com pelling mitigating evidence. Although counsel consulted with Wearry and interviewed his family, he failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into his mental health and childhood, which may have persuaded jurors to spare his life.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 130 S.Ct. 447, 454
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that evidence of poor mental health or mental impairment, in addition to other mitigating evidence, could influence a jury's appraisal of ^defendant's moral culpability
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 41, 130 S.Ct. 447, 454, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (finding that evidence of poor mental health or mental impairment, in addition to other mitigating evidence, could influence a jury’s appraisal of ^defendant's moral culpability); see also Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (“[Evidence about defendant’s background and character is relevant because of the belief ... that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to ... emotional or mental problems ... may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse.”), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 492 U.S. 302, 319
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Evidence about defendant's background and character is relevant because of the belief ... that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to ... emotional or mental problems ... may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse."
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 41, 130 S.Ct. 447, 454, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (finding that evidence of poor mental health or mental impairment, in addition to other mitigating evidence, could influence a jury’s appraisal of ^defendant's moral culpability); see also Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (“[Evidence about defendant’s background and character is relevant because of the belief ... that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to ... emotional or mental problems ... may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse.”), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).