Does counsel's failure to conduct a psychological background and background investigation violate the standard of reasonableness?

If there could be any doubt that counsel's actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, it is obviated by counsel's concession at trial that such an investigation was the prevailing professional norm in the state of Arizona. See Wiggins v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510, 524, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (concluding that counsel performed deficiently where counsel acknowledged the relevant professional norm); see also Pinholster , 563 U.S. at 196, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (distinguishing Wiggins as a case in which the defendant's trial counsel specifically acknowledged a standard practice for capital cases ... that was inconsistent with what he had done). When counsel requested a continuance, he told the court that a continuance was necessary so that counsel could fulfill his constitutional and state-law obligations to conduct a comprehensive psychological profile and background investigation, and obtain all the records available, including those from hospitalizations.⁴ Indeed, counsel conceded that the failure to conduct such an investigation

[828 F.3d 1170]