Does hiring an expert to evaluate possible guilt-phase mental-state defenses discharge defense counsel's duty to prepare for the penalty phase?

Hiring an expert to evaluate possible guilt-phase mental-state defenses does not discharge defense counsel's duty to prepare for the penalty phase. Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir.1995), is directly on point. In Frierson, we explained:

Because the evidence presented at each phase of a trial serves a markedly different purpose, we analyze the reasonableness of counsel's efforts to prepare for trial and sentencing differently. As we explained in Wallace v. Stewart: Hendricks alludes to why the lawyer's burden might differ at the guilt phase from that at the penalty phase: Mental state is relevant at the guilt phase for issues such as competence to stand trial and legal insanitytechnical questions where a defendant must show a specific and very substantial level of mental impairment. Most defendants don't have problems this severe, and counsel can't be expected to know that further investigation is necessary to develop these issues. By contrast, all potentially mitigating evidence is relevant at the sentencing phase of a death case, so a troubled childhood and mental problems may help even if they don't rise to a specific, technically-defined level.