Full opinion text
HULL, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, petitioner-appellant Wallace M. Fugate, III seeks review of the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to vacate his conviction for the 1991 murder of his ex-wife and his death sentence. He argues that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in both the guilt and penalty phases. We affirm the denial of his petition. I. BACKGROUND The facts concerning the murder are not in dispute. The following description is taken from the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court: Fugate and the victim were divorced after almost 20 years of marriage. The victim lived with their son in the former marital residence, while Fugate moved to another town to minimize the likelihood that he would find himself in violation of a restraining order prohibiting him from having contact with his former wife. However, on Saturday, May 4, 1991, Fugate went to the victim’s residence while she and the son were at work. (The son worked part-time at the same business as the victim.) According to Fugate, the victim had leff him a note stating she would be in South Carolina that weekend, and he thought he would repair his son’s automobile while they were gone. Fugate broke into the house soon after his wife and son left for work and stayed there from 9:00 a.m. until they returned home at 5:30 that afternoon. When the victim and the son returned home, they noticed that the son’s car had been moved. She called her sister. The son testified that when he heard a noise in the basement, he got his rifle and ordered Fugate to come out. When Fugate appeared with a revolver in his hand, the son tried to shoot him because Fugate had threatened to kill the victim “if he ever caught her alone.” However, the son’s rifle had been unloaded and disabled and would not fire. Fugate brushed past his son and went to the victim. According to Fugate, he was surprised by the victim’s return, and went to the basement thinking he would sneak out a back door and avoid a confrontation. However, there were too many locks on the back door, so he hid, hoping they would soon leave. When he was discovered, he went upstairs to his wife, who was calling the police, “mashed down” the receiver and told her to take him to the sheriff, thinking this would defuse the situation. However, she was scared — partly because he had a gun in his hand — and attacked him before he could put it in his pocket. As they fought their way out to her van, she knocked him down several times and tried to take away his gun. During the scuffle, the gun went off once inside the house, and a second time as he was trying to put her in her van. Both shots were accidents, according to Fugate. After the second shot mortally wounded her, he took the van and drove off. According to the son, Fugate dragged the victim out to the van, pistol-whipping her when she resisted. He shot once in the house trying to scare her into obeying, and then, when he was unable to force her into her van, Fugate grabbed her hair, jerked her head back and shot her in the forehead. He dropped her body to the ground and drove off. Besides the bullet wound in the forehead, the victim’s body was bruised on the face, shoulders and arms and there was a blunt-force laceration on the back of her head. The son testified that Fu-gate had struck the victim at least 50 times before shooting her. A photograph of Fugate taken shortly after his arrest does not show that he suffered any visible cuts or bruises. Fugate v. State, 263 Ga. 260, 431 S.E.2d 104, 106-07 (1993). Attorneys Reginald Bellury and Leo Browne represented Fugate at trial. Bel-lury was the lead counsel in Fugate’s case. At the time of Fugate’s trial in April 1992, Bellury had been practicing law for seventeen year’s, all in the judicial circuit in which the trial was held with the exception of several months in 1975. Bellury was a prosecutor for three-and-a-half years of that time. As of the trial in this case, sixty percent of Bellury’s practice was comprised of criminal work. He had handled at least ten murder cases either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. Bellury was lead counsel in at least three death penalty cases prior to representing Fu-gate, although in only one of those cases did the defendant actually receive the death penalty. Leo Browne was Bellury’s co-counsel for the trial. When the original co-counsel removed himself from the case, Bellury chose Browne, with whom he shared a secretary, to assist him following the court’s instruction to select a new co-counsel. Browne had been practicing law for thirty-six years as of the time of the trial. Prior to representing Fugate, Browne had been involved in cases in which the prosecution sought the death penalty but the death penalty was not imposed. Browne did not recall reading any books or attending any seminars about the death penalty. Bellury and Browne investigated Fu-gate’s case themselves. Because the defense theory for the murder charge was that the death was an accident, Bellury investigated the amount of trigger movement required to discharge the firearm but did not investigate either the alignment of the trigger or seek scientific measurement of these factors. Browne and Bellury visited with Fugate, the detectives, the murder site, the crime lab, and Fu-gate’s girlfriend, Connie Roach. Browne interviewed Pattie Fugate’s employer, David Hallman. At trial, Fugate’s son Mark Fugate testified that, when Fugate saw Pattie on the telephone, “he grabbed her and started beating her ... [with] [t]he butt of his gun,” and Mark “hit him with the back of [Mark’s] gun.” Mark said that Fugate then “grabbed her by the hair and started dragging her out of the house.” As they reached the back porch steps, Pattie “grabbed a hold of the steps to hang on.” “When [Mark] ran around the corner, [Fu-gate] pointed the gun at [him], and [Mark] stepped back, and the gun went off.” Mark thought Fugate had shot Pattie but then realized that he was trying to scare her into letting go of the steps as “he jerked her out of the house.” Mark said that Fugate “proceeded to get her into the driver’s side of the van, ... beating her and beating her” because she was resisting. Mark said that he attempted to keep them from leaving because he “knew if he left with her, he’d kill her.” Mark thought that, when Fugate realized that “he couldn’t get her in[to the van], ... he tilted her head back and shot her.” Fugate testified that, once he was in Pattie’s house, he called the hotel room number that Pattie had given him to confirm that she was out of state but did not reach her. He said that he called the hotel a few times, but hung up after hearing Pattie’s boyfriend’s voice because he believed that “she was up there with [him].” Pattie’s telephone record exhibits confirmed that, during the afternoon of the murder, a number of calls were made from her residence to the hotel where she planned to stay. Fugate testified that, after Pattie was seated in the van: I leaned in the van. I had the pistol in the right hand, it was up on the top of the back of the van seat. And, I had my other hand on the seat of the van. And, I leaned inside the van, she just laid back and she grabbed the steering wheel and the arm rest to the van seat, and she drawed her legs up and kicked me right square in the chest with both feet as hard as she could, which caught me off guard. I throwed my hands up, you know, trying to keep myself from falling. And, when I did, this hand here that the pistol was in, it hit the top of the door frame on the van and it discharged. He said that he knew that he hit his hand “pretty hard because [it] was black and blue the next day” and “felt like it was broke[n].” He clarified that the pain was not in his entire hand, but in his fingers. He explained that the reaction of my fingers being smashed ... was to draw my hand back. And, when I did, evidently, I hit the trigger. Which I didn’t have my hand on the trigger, I was holding [the] gun— you know, I palmed the gun, it wasn’t like I was holding it like I was going to shoot it or anything. Fugate asked for permission to hold the gun during the trial, and squeezed the trigger commenting that “[i]t’s very easy to do.” During Fugate’s cross-examination, the prosecutor compared Fugate’s testimony to that of other witnesses and asked Fu-gate whether he had “told the jury up here you were lying to them, that you lied this morning, didn’t you?” When the prosecutor asked what had happened to the note from Pattie that had the telephone number on it, Fugate responded that he did not have it because it was in the clothes that he had on the day of his arrest which had not been returned. Fugate explained that the note “was in [his] wallet to start with.... When I made the phone call, I stuck it in my shirt pocket.” The prosecutor asked whether Fugate had “really made the phone call based on a little note with two telephone numbers laying there on the table by Patty’s telephone. It had [Pattie’s boyfriend’s] number on it and a contractor’s number in Monticello.” Fu-gate responded that “[t]here wasn’t a pad laying there by the telephone.” Roach testified that the jail personnel had given her some of the clothes that Fugate was wearing at the time of his arrest, but that neither the flannel shirt nor the note from Pattie were in the returned clothes. She said that she had not found the note despite Fugate’s request that she look for it but confirmed that she was with Fugate when he got the note from Pattie and that it contained the hotel name. After Fugate explained how the gun “went off the second time,” the prosecutor commented: “You could sell the Golden Gate Bridge.” The prosecutor stated “[o]h, that’s the fourth lie now you’ve admitted to,” after Fugate explained the differences in his statement to the police and in his testimony. The prosecutor also commented “Mr. Fugate, you made a statement ... that ... the minute you told them that you didn’t want to talk to them any more, that you wanted an attorney, they shut up, and left you alone.” David Hallman, Pattie’s employer, testified that Pattie and Mark usually worked on Saturdays, and both worked until shortly after 4:00 p.m. on the day of the murder. Hallman said that, if Pattie had wanted to schedule Saturday off, he was flexible and she could have “even ... asked me on Friday, as long as she had somebody ... capable [to cover for her].” He said that she had “mentioned” being off on that particular Saturday, but he did not remember the details of the conversation. During the guilt phase closing arguments, Bellury presented the first argument and Browne presented the concluding argument. Bellury maintained that the shooting was a “[p]ure, pure accident. Extremely tragic accident.... It was a regrettable accident.... A tragic accident.” Browne asserted that the shooting was “an accidental death ... [,] an unfortunate situation, a terrible situation.” He argued that Fugate had no intention of kidnapping Pattie, noting that he “deliberately tried to get to that house when she was not going to be within hundreds of miles of the place. She was going to be gone. He wasn’t kidnapping Patty Fu-gate.” Browne also analogized Pattie to a “Bengal tiger,” referring to the fact that she did not fear Fugate. Browne maintained that, after Fugate suggested that they go to the sheriffs office, Pattie “fought him like a tiger. He was trying to protect himself.” The prosecutor argued that there was no note, and commented that Fugate was supposed to have had on a tee-shirt, flannel shirt, and jacket on May 4. He maintained that Fugate had gotten the hotel telephone number from the table near the telephone in Pattie’s home. The jury returned a verdict of guilty for murder, burglary, and kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault, and theft by taking. The penalty phase of the trial began immediately after the jury returned the guilty verdicts at 3:45 p.m. on April 29, 1992. At the penalty phase, the prosecutor did not make an opening statement and did not present any witnesses. Fugate’s attorneys made no opening statement but called four witnesses: Mary Fugate, Fu-gate’s mother; Wayne Hatcher, Fugate’s niece’s boyfriend; Elmos Hendrix, Roach’s neighbor; and Deborah Shepherd, Roach’s sister. As outlined in detail below, these four witnesses testified generally about Fugate’s work history, character, and nonviolent nature. Mary Fugate testified that Fugate was “an obedient child” who had never been in trouble, and she stated that he was a good father who was not violent and had always worked. She also testified that his marriage to Pattie had been stormy. Hatcher testified that he had known Fugate for about four or five years and thought that he had a “rather well character.” Hatcher conceded that he had heard from his girlfriend that Fugate “harassed” his ex-wife, but he also stated that he had never known Fugate to be physically violent or seen Fugate commit any violent acts. Hendrix testified that he knew Fugate because he lived in the neighborhood and had performed some work for one of their neighbors. He said that Fu-gate was “mighty quiet and a mighty hard worker,” and had “done some good work for me.” Shepherd testified that she had known Fugate for about one-and-a-half years, and that he was “very polite, ... very good with the kids. The kids really liked him, they got along with him.” Shepard also stated that she had never known Fugate to be violent. Mary Fugate, Hatcher, Hendrix, and Shepherd each indicated that they believed that Fugate should be sentenced to life. Hendrix said that Fugate should be sentenced to life because “he’d be worth something to the State,” noting that “[t]he State needs carpenters and electricians and brick masons and things.” When asked on cross-examination whether he really thought that the prosecution “ought to do nothing but just let him sit around the penitentiary and carpenter [sic],” Hendrix replied, “Well, I think he deserves a chance.... I think he needs a chance because he’s done a good job there for me, and I think — believe he’d be some help to the State.” The prosecution cross-examined three of these witnesses (Hendrix, Hatcher, and Shepherd). Fugate’s counsel conducted a brief re-direct examination of Hatcher. The witnesses’ testimony was completed by 4:12 p.m., and the jury was dismissed prior to the charge conference. After deliberating for one hour and forty-three minutes, the jury returned a recommendation of death. Fugate’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, Fugate v. State, 263 Ga. 260, 431 S.E.2d 104 (1993), and reconsideration was denied. Fugate filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. At an evidentiary hearing, Bellury said that he was never able to find or corroborate the existence of the note from Pattie with the name and phone number of the hotel. He said that he did not consider the note or the flannel shirt significant pieces of evidence because he felt that “the evidence pretty much showed that he believed she would not be there.” Bellury had interviewed Pattie’s employer, David Hallman, who said that he “believed until that Friday ... that Patti would be off that weekend ... but ... that he told her that she would have to work” because another employee would not work for her. When asked, he agreed that “Mr. Hallman’s testimony that she was expected to be off that weekend” would have supported Fugate’s testimony that she had told him that she would be off. Following the filing of post-hearing briefs, the state habeas court, in a ninety-two page order, denied Fugate’s state ha-beas petition. The state habeas court noted that Fugate had raised several grounds which were procedurally defaulted, and that Fugate’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was “not ... established so as to constitute cause for the procedural defaults.” The state habeas court commented that Fugate “recognize[d] that the decision of the United States Supreme [CJourt in Strickland v. Washington ... governs the usual evaluation of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,” but found that there were no extraordinary circumstances present in this case, such that would establish a complete denial of counsel or a breakdown in the adversary process eliminating an examination of prejudice as a requirement by this Court in considering Petitioner’s claim. Throughout the trial counsels’ habeas corpus direct and cross-examination testimony, lead counsel was able to articulate his reasoning behind specific tactical decisions for his defense. In assessing “the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness,” the state ha-beas court stated that “the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all of the circumstances.” The state habeas court then evaluated Fugate’s ineffectiveness claims “viewed from a perspective of counsel at that time.” The state habeas court noted that Bellury and Browne “prepared for trial and investigated evidence to support [Fugate’s] accident defense,” and that “Mr. Bellury testified that he and Mr. Browne were very clear ‘from beginning to end’ as to what their defense would be.” On the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase, the state habeas court held that an “exhaustive examination of the record and transcript establishes [ ] that ‘petitioner’s conviction re-suited not from any deficiency in his legal presentation, but from the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.’ ” On the issue of ineffective assistance at the penalty phase, the state habeas court noted that “it has been repeatedly held that the failure to put on mitigating evidence at a sentencing hearing at all is not per se ineffective,” and held that the evidence showed that “Mr. Bellury had sufficient knowledge of potential mitigating evidence to arrive at an informed judgment,” and that the failure to “introduce additional mitigation evidence did not prejudice the sentencing phase.” Fugate filed an appeal and applied for a certificate of probable cause (“CPC”), but the Ceorgia Supreme Court denied CPC and reconsideration. On December 10, 1997, Fugate filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Fugate raised three primary issues: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel in both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial; (2) improper admission of evidence; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct. After briefs were filed by the parties, the district court denied federal habeas relief. Fugate v.. Turpin, 8 F.Supp.2d 1383 (M.D.Ga.1998). The district court found one of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the improper admission of evidence claim, and the prosecutorial misconduct claim to be procedurally barred. See id. at 1387. After agreeing with the state habeas court that Strickland was the proper Supreme Court precedent governing Fugate’s remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the district court stated, “[T]he court cannot find that the state habeas court unreasonably applied Strickland to the facts of this case.” Id. at 1388. The district court continued that “the state court’s well-reasoned and thorough opinion adequately analyzed all claims,” and it “agree[d] with the state court’s conclusions in all respects,” specifically noting that “while the defense was not perfect — it never is after the fact — under the circumstances it was more than constitutionally adequate.” Id. Fugate timely appealed and was granted a certificate of appealability. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In appeals involving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we traditionally review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions and mixed questions of law and fact de novo. See Williams v. Head, 185 F.3d 1223, 1226-27 (11th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1246, 120 S.Ct. 2696, 147 L.Ed.2d 967 (2000). In this case, however, both this court and the district court are reviewing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a final state habeas judgment. Section 2254, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1218 (1996), establishes a more deferential standard of review of state habeas judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-03, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). First, § 2254(e)(1) provides for a highly deferential standard of review for factual determinations made by a state court: “[A] determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Bottoson v. Moore, 234 F.3d 526, 531 (11th Cir.2000). Second, § 2254(d) allows federal habeas relief for a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court only where that adjudication in state court: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Section 2254(d)(1) “places a new constraint on the power of a federal habeas court to grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to claims adjudicated on the merits in state court” by requiring satisfaction of one of two conditions for issuance of the writ. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The Supreme Court has explained the requirements in § 2254(d)(1) as follows: Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case. Id. at 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The “contrary to” clause in § 2254(d)(1) “suggests that the state court’s decision must be substantially different” from the relevant Supreme Court precedent. Id. at 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Although a state court’s decision that “applies a rule that contradicts” the governing Supreme Court law is “contrary,” id., a state court decision that applies “the correct legal rule” based on Supreme Court law to the facts of the petitioner’s case would not fit within the “contrary to” clause even if the federal court might have reached a different result relying on the same law. Id. at 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495. In evaluating the “ ‘unreasonable application’ inquiry,” id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495, the federal court should consider whether the state court’s application of the law was “objectively unreasonable” and should not apply the subjective “‘all reasonable jurists’ ” standard, id. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The Supreme Court clarified that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), the federal court may not issue the writ unless it finds that the state court applied Supreme Court law unreasonably. Id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COUNSEL’S PERFORMANCE The Supreme Court has identified Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), as the “controlling legal authority” to be applied to ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Williams, 529 U.S. at 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a habeas petitioner must show (1) that “counsel’s performance was deficient” because it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, and (2) that “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense,” id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In a capital case, the two-prong Strickland analysis is applied at both the guilt and penalty phases. Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1142 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686-87, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Counsel’s performance is entitled to “highly deferential” judicial scrutiny, and “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’ ” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). This presumption is even stronger when the reviewing court is examining the performance of an experienced trial counsel. See Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1316 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1217, 149 L.Ed.2d 129 (2001). In this case, the state habeas court acknowledged that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are governed by Strickland and that the petitioner was required to show both ineffectiveness and prejudice. To analyze the prejudice prong, a court must “evaluate the totality of the available mitigation evidence — both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the ha-beas proceeding' — in reweighing it against the evidence in aggravation.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 397-98, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (citing Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 751-52, 110 S.Ct. 1441, 108 L.Ed.2d 725 (1990)). “Given the strong presumption in favor of competence, the petitioner’s burden of persuasion — though the presumption is not insurmountable — is a heavy one.” Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1314 (footnote and citations omitted). In order to show that counsel’s performance was unreasonable, the petitioner “must establish that no competent counsel would have taken the action that his counsel did take.” Id. at 1315 (footnote and citation omitted). “No absolute rules dictate what is reasonable performance for lawyers.” Id. at 1317 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-89, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Thus, courts refrain from establishing rigid requirements for trial counsel’s performance. For example, there is no absolute duty to investigate particular facts or a certain line of defense, although a complete failure to investigate may constitute deficient performance of counsel in certain circumstances. See id.; Housel v. Head, 238 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir.2001) (“A failure to investigate can be deficient performance in a capital case when counsel totally fails to inquire into the defendant’s past or present behavior or life history.”). Likewise, “[n]o absolute duty exists to introduce mitigating or character evidence.” Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1319. This court and the Supreme Court have held repeatedly that the performance of counsel who fails to present any mitigating evidence whatsoever — even when such evidence was available — may nonetheless pass constitutional muster. See id. (citing Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 794-96, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 182-84, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986); Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506, 1511 (11th Cir.1995) (en banc)). Indeed, “[c]onsidering the realities of the courtroom, more is not always better. Stacking defenses can hurt a case. Good advocacy requires ‘winnowing out’ some arguments, witnesses, evidence, and so on, to stress others.” Id. (citations omitted). With these governing principles in mind, we turn to an evaluation of the performance of Fugate’s attorneys during both the guilt and sentencing portions of this trial. IV. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AT THE GUILT PHASE Fugate argues that his attorneys’ performance was deficient and that he suffered prejudice as a result because the jury was deprived of critical evidence and exposed to improper and prejudicial evidence and assertions. Specifically, Fugate claims that the resolution of the guilt phase depended upon the resolution of a few critical facts, including Fugate’s expectation that his ex-wife and son were out of town, the physical location of Fugate and Pattie when the fatal shot was fired, and the workings of the gun and likelihood that it discharged accidently. Fugate maintains that his attorneys failed to subject the state’s case to adversarial testing on each of these issues. Upon review, we conclude that the efforts of Fugate’s counsel with regard to these issues did not constitute ineffective assistance. A. Corroboration of Fugate’s Intent Fugate maintains that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to offer evidence to support his assertion that he thought Pattie would be out of town over the weekend and that this information was critical to his defense. During the trial, Fugate testified that he had received a note from Pattie indicating that she would be out of town on May 4, and it provided him with the telephone number of the motel where she would be staying. He claimed that he had placed the note into the pocket of a flannel shirt that he was wearing that day. Fugate’s girlfriend corroborated the existence of the note and the fact that Fugate was wearing a flannel shirt on the day of the murder. Fugate’s awareness of the telephone number of the hotel was corroborated by the introduced telephone records which showed that he had called the hotel. Pattie’s employer testified that, although she had mentioned taking off that Saturday, she worked until a little after 4:00 p.m. on that day. Bellury testified that he did not consider the flannel shirt or the note significant evidence because other evidence supported Fugate’s belief that Pat-tie would not be at the house. Because the issue of whether a killing was impulsive or premeditated can be “an important factor when the jurors consider whether to recommend the death penalty,” an attorney can be ineffective for failing to raise a reasonable doubt as to the impulsiveness or premeditation of the act during opening and closing arguments. Magill v. Dugger, 824 F.2d 879, 889 (11th Cir.1987). Ineffectiveness, however, is not established by the fact that other testimony might have been elicited. See Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506, 1514 (11th Cir.1995). Although other evidence might have been presented, Fugate’s attorneys elicited testimony from his girlfriend and from Pattie’s employer which supported Fugate’s testimony that he believed that Pattie would be out of town. Fugate’s attorneys were aware of the note and made an informed, strategic decision not to pursue further evidence of the note or the flannel shirt. Additionally, as the state habeas court noted, there were inconsistencies in Fugate’s testimony regarding his belief that Pattie would be out of town. Even if Fugate had believed that she was out of town, he lacked permission to be in her home and was under a restraining order to stay away from her house. Therefore, we are unable to find deficient performance or prejudice on this issue. B. Failure to Impeach Critical Prosecution Witnesses Fugate argues that his attorneys performed below professional standards by failing to impeach Mark Fugate with the inconsistencies in his written statement to the police and in his testimony at trial. Fugate also contends that his attorneys performed deficiently by failing to impeach the medical examiner with the inconsistencies in his autopsy report and in his testimony at trial. In his statement to the police, Mark said that he ran to the back of the van. I peeked around, I heard a shot. I saw my mother’s head hit the ground. I could not tell if he held her head back or not. He had his back to me. He was holding her by the head of the hair. At trial, Mark testified that he saw Fugate “grab [Pattie] — holding her by her hair, tilt[] her head back, put the gun in her face, and pull[] the trigger.” On cross-examination, Mark admitted, “I did not see the bullet hit her face, because I blinked my eyes at that moment when he pulled the trigger.” At the state habeas hearing, Bellury acknowledged that, prior to the trial, he had received Mark’s statement to the police but said that he was unable to interview Mark. Bellury said that after conducting their pretrial discovery, he and Browne “finally concluded that [Mark] could not see, certainly couldn’t have seen everything that went on” and believed that he argued that to the jury. Bellury recollected that Mark testified at trial that Fugate “grabbed [Pattie’s] hair but some way had held her head back and shot her.” The decision as to whether to cross-examine a witness is “a tactical one well within the discretion of a defense attorney.” Messer v. Kemp, 760 F.2d 1080, 1090 (11th Cir.1985). Absent a showing of “a single specific instance where cross-examination arguably could have affected the outcome of either the guilt or sentencing phase of the trial,” the petitioner is unable to show prejudice necessary to satisfy the second prong of Strickland. Id. We have found ineffective assistance where counsel failed to impeach the key prosecution witness with prior inconsistent testimony where the earlier testimony was much more favorable to the defendant. See Nixon v. Newsome, 888 F.2d 112, 115-16 (11th Cir.1989); Smith v. Wainwright, 799 F.2d 1442, 1443-44 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam). Ineffective assistance, however, will not be found merely because “ ‘other testimony might have been elicited from those who testified.’ ” Waters, 46 F.3d at 1514 (quoting Foster v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 402, 406 (11th Cir.1987)). Fugate’s attorneys arguably performed deficiently in failing to impeach Mark, the sole eyewitness, with his prior inconsistent statement to the police. Regardless of whether Fugate’s attorneys should have pursued a more aggressive cross-examination of Fugate’s son, however, Fugate is unable to show prejudice from his counsel’s failure to impeach Mark. Counsel made a tactical decision to focus cross-examination on Mark’s inability to see what actually happened at the critical moment of the shooting. Counsel was able to establish that Mark was unable to see what occurred. Fugate also argues that his attorneys were ineffective for failing to impeach the medical examiner when he testified that the lack of powder burns on Pattie’s forehead did not necessarily indicate that the barrel of the gun had, been distant at the time of the shooting. In his autopsy report; Dr. Randy Hanzlick, the medical examiner, noted that “[tjhere is no gunshot residue on the forehead, there is no charring of the wound, and there is no gunshot residue in the depths of the wound track.... This is a distant gunshot wound.” At the trial, the prosecutor asked Dr. Hanzlick whether he found “anything that would indicate or give [him] any idea of distance.” Dr. Hanzlick responded: No, I didn’t find any gun powder or gunshot residue in the wound itself or on the skin surface. So I can say that I— that I’m pretty sure that the gun was not directly on the skin. You know, it would’ve blown gun powder down into the wound, and that was not present here. Referencing a photograph, Dr. Hanzlick explained that “the hair is kind of pulled down over the forehead area and covering that area actually where the gunshot wound was.” The prosecutor then asked “if the bullet passed through that hair, would that have affected the amount of stippling or powder residue and all on the skin?” Dr. Hanzlick answered that “[i]t could block it. Any object that was between the gun and the skin surface could block that powder from getting on the skin.” Dr. Hanzlick responded “[y]es” when asked whether such a block would interfere with his estimation of the exact distance of the gun. On cross-examination, Fugate’s counsel asked Dr. Hanzlick what was “the maximum distance away before you don’t have the [gunshot] residue?” Dr. Hanzlik responded that with a .38 caliber handgun, once you’re beyond about 18 inches to two feet or so, the pattern gets sparse enough that you might not see anything on the skin.... If that particular gun had discharged normally and was one foot away and it had a normal load in it that fired normally and there was nothing between the front of the gun and the skin, it probably would’ve left some sort of tattooing or stippling on the skin’s surface. When Fugate’s counsel asked whether there would be much blood spattering as a result of the gunshot wound, Dr. Hanzlik answered that there would not be a lot and that the gun “was not in direct contact with the skin.” At the habeas hearing, Bellury commented that he was “very surprised” by Dr. Hanzlick’s “adversarial demeanor” at trial when he “did not want to admit that the distance had to be as great” as Bellury and Browne had heard him say during a pretrial interview. Although Bellury did not use the autopsy report to impeach Dr. Hanzlick, he was able to get Dr. Hanzlick to state that the gun was not against Pattie’s skin and was more than one foot away. Therefore, Fu-gate is unable to show prejudice as a result of the failure to impeach. C. Failure to Demonstrate the Susceptibility of the Gtm to Accidental Firing Fugate contends that his attorneys performed deficiently by failing to contact an independent weapons expert or the manufacturer of the gun regarding the possibility of an accidental firing. At trial, the prosecution presented testimony that the gun involved in the murder would fire in two modes: a single-action mode, which required that the gun be cocked, and a double-action mode, which did not require that the gun be cocked. In the single-action mode, it took 4.2 pounds of pressure to fire; in the double-action mode, it took more than 12 pounds of pressure to fire. During the state habeas corpus hearing, Fugate introduced the affidavit of an expert witness which indicated that the spur on the hammer of this gun is “manufactured with a grid surface to facilitate being cocked.” The expert opined that, based on the grid surface, “it is easier for the 11/32” wide spur to become accidently cocked due to contact with a person’s clothing, hair or body parts.” Ineffective assistance of counsel does not implicate the Sixth Amendment unless the attorney’s conduct affected the reliability of the trial process. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). A Sixth Amendment violation will be found “if counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversaria] testing,” making “the adversary process itself presumptively unreliable.” Id. at 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039. In order to prove ineffective assistance, a petitioner must show that his attorney’s acts or omissions were not “the result of reasonable professional judgment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Counsel is ineffective when he failed to investigate adequately the sole strategy for defense and to prepare evidence to support the defense which might have affected the jury’s comparison of conflicting testimony. See Code v. Montgomery, 799 F.2d 1481, 1483-84 (11th Cir.1986). Counsel has a constitutional duty to investigate and prepare a defense strategy, House v. Balkcom, 725 F.2d 608, 618 (11th Cir.1984), and to not proceed with a “defense without evidence to support it,” Young v. Zant, 677 F.2d 792, 798 (11th Cir.1982). In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to investigate and present expert testimony at the sentencing phase, we have held that the petitioner must show: (a) that it was professionally unreasonable for counsel not to investigate; (b) what kind of, and how much, investigation an ordinary, reasonable lawyer would have undertaken; (c) that it is reasonably probable that a reasonable investigation would have turned up an expert who would have presented testimony similar to that which was eventually adduced; and (d) that it is reasonably probable that this testimony would have affected the sentence eventually imposed. Failure to meet any of these steps defeats the ineffectiveness claim. Elledge v. Dugger, 828 F.2d 1439, 1446 n. 15 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 833 F.2d 250 (11th Cir.1987). Where counsel investigated the possibility of presenting expert testimony, but decided, based on that investigation, not to present this form of mitigating evidence, the Elledge test does not need to be applied. Mincey, 206 F.3d at 1146 n. 83. We cannot say that, under the circumstances in this case, the decision by Bellu-ry not to hire an expert witness to testify regarding the propensity of the gun to accidental firing was unreasonable. Fu-gate's defense was based on his claim that the gun accidentally fired during his altercation with Pattie. Fugate never claimed that the gun was cocked when it discharged or that it cocked accidentally but claimed that he squeezed the trigger accidentally. Bellury and Browne were experienced with firearms, visited the state crime lab, examined the gun, and investigated the amount of trigger movement required to discharge the firearm. Bellu-ry testified that he did not believe that an expert would have helped. At trial, Bellu-ry cross-examined the state’s firearm expert regarding the amount of force needed to discharge the gun. The accident defense submitted to the jury was supported by the testimony of Fugate and the state’s firearm expert. D. Alleged Failure of Counsel to Protect Legal Rights Fugate claims that his attorneys failed to object to the prosecutor’s reference to Fugate’s invocation of his right to counsel during interrogation, failed to object to the prosecutor’s argumentative behavior during cross-examination, and argued inconsistent theories of defense in closing argument. During the trial, the prosecutor introduced a waiver signed by Fugate at the time of his interrogation. On cross-examination, Bellury asked Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent Marc Mansfield about the contents of Fugate’s statement, and Mansfield reported that Fugate “said that it was an accident.” Mansfield noted that, after Fugate “made the statement to us, ‘You know, she is dead, and I think I need an attorneyU’ ... the interview was terminated.” During the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Fugate, Fugate commented that the police had harassed him. The prosecutor replied that “the minute that you told them that you didn’t want to talk to them any more, that you wanted an attorney, they shut up, and left you alone.” Fugate responded, “No, sir, they did not. I told them the first thing that I went in there, that I needed an attorney.” At the habeas corpus hearing, Bellury conceded that the testimony that Fugate terminated the questioning by asserting his right to counsel did not help his case. He explained that he did not move to exclude the statement and “regarded [the statement] as neutral,” because it “[basically” was consistent with Fugate’s testimony at trial. He testified that he did not want to further address Fugate’s termination of the questioning because it was “inconsistent” and did not “blend in” with the defense theory that Fugate was forthcoming. In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the Supreme Court held that the use of a defendant’s silence at the time of his arrest for impeachment purposes violates due process. Id. at 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240. The Court later extended this protection to post-Miranda invocations of the right to counsel. Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284, 295, 106 S.Ct. 634, 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986). If the prosecution violated the Greenfield standard, then we must determine whether that “error ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’ ” Hill v. Turpin, 135 F.3d 1411, 1416 (11th Cir.1998) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)). Ineffective assistance of counsel may be established where a defense counsel fails to object to the prosecutor’s “very serious instances of prosecutorial misconduct” which include “the initial introduction of [the defendant’s] silence,” “cross-examination of [the defendant] about his post-arrest silence,” and “argument which invited the jury to consider constitutionally protected silence as evidence of [the defendant’s] guilt.” Gravley v. Mills, 87 F.3d 779, 785 (6th Cir.1996). Although repeated and intentional Greenfield violations are unconstitutional, references to a defendant’s silence that are “isolated” or “unintentional” or “promptly addressed by a curative instruction from the trial court” and not further “highlight[ed]” by “questioning other witnesses or during closing argument” are reviewed for harmless error. Hill, 135 F.3d at 1417. In this case, the Greenfield violations were harmless. There were two technical Greenfield violations when the jury heard that Fugate asked for an attorney at the end of his voluntary police interview. Fugate’s counsel failed to object to this admission, and the trial judge failed to give a curative instruction to the jury. Both improper references, however, were brief and one occurred in Fugate’s testimony. The prosecutor did not repeat the references, question other witnesses regarding them, or address them during closing argument. Fugate contends that his attorneys were ineffective by failing to object to the prosecutor’s argumentative, bullying, and prejudicial cross-examination. At the habeas hearing, Bellury said that, although he was “definitely taken back” when Fugate “ask[ed] the prosecutor if he could hold the gun,” he should have objected when the prosecutor “said to Mr. Fugate, ‘You could sell the Golden Gate Bridge,’ ” and accused him of being a liar. When asked whether he agreed that it was important to object to improper questions, Bellury responded, “Well, sometimes and sometimes not. It’s a decision that has to be made. It’s an important decision. I would say that certainly it’s that, yes.” Bellury conceded that, in hindsight, he “probably ... would object.” He explained: I deliberately did not make those objections then. I — It wasn’t that I was sitting there asleep or something. Those were deliberate decisions. Right or wrong, they were deliberate decisions at the time. I wasn’t thinking of it in terms of who was getting the best of the argument. ... I was mainly thinking that this was the most dreadful sort of — sort of testimony I had ever — ever had a client give at any time and I was hoping it would be over with just as quickly as it could possibly be over with. The shorter that went on the — the better off I figured we were. I am saying that at the time my lack of objections were deliberate .... at the time it made sense to me to do what I did and to not do what I didn’t do. In evaluating counsel’s performance, we “always avoid second guessing with the benefit of hindsight” and “allow lawyers broad discretion to represent their clients by pursing their own strategy.” White v. Singletary, 972 F.2d 1218, 1220, 1221 (11th Cir.1992). In this ease, Fugate agreed to several incriminating lines of inquiry from the prosecutor by offering to demonstrate how the gun fired, looking unsympathetically at the pictures of his deceased ex-wife, and arguing with the prosecutor over the severity and cause of his ex-wife's injuries. Bellury stated that he made a deliberate decision to expedite Fugate's testimony because it was so inherently damaging. Therefore, because Bellury's failure to object was strategic, there was no ineffective assistance of counsel. Fugate contends that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance by arguing inconsistent theories of the case during closing argument. He maintains that, while Bellury focused on the accident defense, Browne advanced a self-defense theory by characterizing Pattie as a "Bengal tiger." In Georgia, the presentation of inconsistent defenses by two defense attorneys is ineffective assistance. See Ross v. Kemp, 260 Ga. 312, 393 S.E.2d 244, 245 (1990) (per curiam). During closing arguments, both Bellury and Browne argued that the shooting was an accident. They had discussed their closing arguments in a "very general fashion" before the trial, and Bellury was familiar with Browne's style. Browne attempted to explain that the accident was precipitated by a scuffle prompted by Pat-tie's over-reaction to Fugate's presence and his stories were his means of analogizing that over-reaction. The state habeas court found that counsels' closing arguments, "while perhaps contrasting in style, was not contrasting on the critical issue of Petitioner's defense, which this was a tragic accident." Because Bellury and Browne argued consistent theories of defense, there was no ineffective assistance of counsel during closing argument. Alternatively, even assuming ar-guendo that Fugate has shown sufficient errors by his counsel to rise to the level of constitutionally deficient performance at the guilt phase, we conclude that the substantial evidence of Fugate's guilt would defeat any showing of prejudice. The state habeas court found, and we agree, that the trial evidence would support the jury's findings that: 1) Fugate broke into the victim's house through the basement window and waited all day for her return, intending to take her away with him against her will; 2) Fugate was there at least eight hours; 3) the son's rifle had been disabled; 4) Fugate forced Pattie out to the van with a gun in his hand; 5) Pattie was beaten by a blunt object on the head and had bruises around her face, shoulders, and body that were consistent with defensive wounds; 6) Fugate first shot inside the house; 7) Fugate intentionally shot Pattie; 8) Fugate lied about his excuse for even having a gun or having taken the gun; 9) Fugate's own testimony was impeached several times before the jury by his girlfriend's testimony and by his own testimony; and 10) Fugate's demeanor before the jury on cross-examination was hostile. Therefore, Fugate's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase fails under the prejudice prong. V. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE DURING THE PENALTY PHASE Fugate contends that his attorneys failed to obtain and present adequate mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of the trial. This failure, he claims, was a product of neglect rather than of strategy and thus rendered his counsels' assistance ineffective. He asserts that had his attorneys conducted a sufficient investigation they would have discovered important mitigation evidence concerning his military experience, work history, lack of a criminal record, and good reputation in the community. Fugate argues that this additional mitigating evidence was especially necessary in light of the "distorted and unreliable" picture of the crime that resulted from his counsel's allegedly insufficient performance during the guilt phase of the trial. Again, after reviewing the record in this case and in light of the applicable rules, we conclude that Fugate’s claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase fails as a matter of law. A. Evidence Presented During the Penalty Phase As mentioned above, Fugate’s attorneys called four witnesses during the penalty phase. These four witnesses testified generally about Fugate’s work history and character, noting that he was a hard worker and a good father and that he was helpful, non-violent, and good with children. Hendrix testified that Fugate was “a mighty hard worker.” Hendrix stated that he first met Fugate when Fugate was working on the house of Hendrix’s neighbor. Hatcher and Shepherd both testified that they did not know Fugate to be violent. Although on cross-examination Hatcher conceded that he had heard from his girlfriend that Fugate “harassed” his ex-wife, on re-direct Fugate’s counsel elicited additional testimony from Hatcher that he had never seen Fugate commit any violent acts. In addition, Shepherd testified that Fugate was “always very polite” and that he was “very good” with her children as well as Connie Roach’s, stating that the kids “really liked” Fugate. Of the four witnesses called during the penalty phase, Fugate’s mother, Mary Fu-gate, provided the most extensive testimony concerning Fugate’s character. She testified about Fugate’s childhood, stating that he was “a real good boy” and “an obedient child” who was never in trouble. She stated that he had “always worked, ever since he was small.” When asked about whether Fugate was a good father, Fugate’s mother stated, “I’d call him an excellent father.” She testified that Fu-gate did most of the housework and that he “was a good father because all he done was work for” his family. Fugate’s mother also testified that Fugate was not violent. In addition, Mary Fugate conceded that Fugate and Pattie had “some stormy times” in their marriage. She admitted that upon her return after “a couple of years” from another state, there had been no appreciable change in Fugate’s attitude or behavior. Following the testimony of the four witnesses and the charge conference, both the prosecution and Fugate’s counsel made closing statements. During his closing argument, Bellury emphasized that there was no record that Fugate had a conviction of any kind, stating: If this man had committed a violent act previous to this of any kind, if he had committed another murder or another aggravated assault, or another kidnap-ing, anything like it, anything involving violence, anything. You can be sure you would have that before you. Already. You would know that. You’d have evidence of it. You’d have somebody come up here and testify to it. But, you don’t have that. You don’t have that. There is no record — no written record, nothing shown to you of a conviction of any kind, no witnesses come in here and say, “Hey, it happened to me, but I never did bring the charge.” You don’t have that. You don’t have that. What that means is that this man is simply not a danger to his community or anybody who lives in this community or anywhere else. This happened to one that was close to him. This is not a man that goes out and robs and wants to kill folks, anybody who’s going to be any danger any place. B. Efforts of Fugate’s Counsel in Preparation for the Penalty Phase 1. Fugate’s List of Potential Mitigation Witnesses At a pretrial hearing in January 1992, the trial judge instructed Bellury and Browne “to locate and interview all persons whose testimony might be helpful in discovering or supporting available theories of defense or in mitigation of punishment.” Accordingly, Bellury requested a list from Fugate of individuals who he thought would provide testimony favorable to him if he was convicted. The list submitted by Fugate to his counsel, which was a focal point of the state habeas proceedings, was numbered one through twenty-seven, but it actually contained the names of thirty-four individuals and one business, including names of family members, neighbors, and former coworkers. There is no indication as to when Fugate actually submitted this list of potential mitigation witnesses to his counsel. One of the four witnesses who testified on Fugate’s behalf at the penalty phase — Elmos Hendrix — was on that list. Referring to Fugate’s list, the state ha-beas court found, “Each of the twenty-seven persons was contacted and decisions were made as to whether they were able to cooperate or willing to cooperate and whether they would testify and, if so, would their testimony be favorable.” %. Bellury’s Testimony at the State Habeas Proceeding The state habeas court’s findings were based almost entirely on Bellury’s testimony at the state habeas proceeding. According to that testimony, Bellury began preparing for the penalty phase of trial as early as February 24, 1992, when he had a discussion with Browne that Bellury thought “would have dealt with mitigation,” among other matters. Bellury spoke with Connie Jo Roach, Fugate’s girlfriend, on February 27 and again on March 18. Bellury testified that he and Browne “shared the work” on Fugate’s case, “particularly on mitigation.” Bellury and Browne divided the task of contacting the witnesses identified on Fugate’s list between them, and together they “made an attempt, one way or another either by letter, by telephone or in person to — to contact everybody on that — on that list.” Rl-12-Exh. 24 at 88; see also id. (“In other words, I did not take all of those witnesses myself and attempt to contact them. [Browne] had attempted to contact some of them.”); id. at 55 (“[W]e both worked on the mitigation witnesses. I did, he did. You know, even though he took some, I took some. I mean nonetheless we’re both working in that same area.”); id. at 170-71 (“We attempted to contact everyone on [the list].”); id. at 171 (“We did make an effort, I’m satisfied, on both— on all of 'em.”). Most of Bellury’s contacts of potential mitigation witnesses were by telephone. Bellury stated that when he spoke with potential witnesses he “in every instance explained why I was talking to them, why I was questioning them, what I wanted them to do and just what their thoughts were about Mr. Fugate.” While Bellury stated that he and Browne attempted to contact every witness identified by Fugate, he could not remember how many witnesses they were actually able to contact. He also could not recall specifically which witnesses on Fu-gate’s list he contacted, nor could he ascertain from his notes which witnesses he did or did not actually contact. See Rl-12-Exh. 24 at 170-71 (“I don’t know exactly which ones I contacted and which ones Mr. Browne. That was a task that we split between us. I mean, in other words he did some, I did some.”); Rl-12-Exh. 25 at 265 (“I cannot say positively who I did and did not contact or — and not whet — which ones I did and which ones Mr. Browne did.”). Bellury did state that they “definitely contacted more people than we subpoenaed.” Bellury noted that Browne would “mostly just simply tell” him about his own efforts to contact someone on the list, although he did not know which witnesses Browne may have contacted. He also stated that there were “a multiple number of people” who did not want to discuss Fugate’s case, but he could not recall exactly how many. Bellury’s testimony includes descriptions of contacts with at least six potential mitigation witnesses. He specifically recalled his meeting with Elmos Hendrix, who was identified on Fugate’s list and who testified during the penalty phase, and Bellury remembered “being delighted at his attitude and willingness and enthusiasm even.” Bellury also testified specifically about his pretrial discussions with Mary Fugate, Jennifer Fugate, and Connie Roach, none of whom were on Fugate’s list of witnesses. In addition, Bellury stated that he “definitely recalled] making at least one phone call and probably more” to the Macon Machine Shop — where Fugate had once worked — although he did not recall nor did he have any record of who it was. Furthermore, Bellury remembered speaking with a former neighbor who ultimately stated that he did not want to testify. Bellury knew of the broad range of evidence that could permissibly be presented at the penalty phase. In determining what testimony to present at the penalty phase, Bellury testified that he and Browne were looking for any favorable testimony, stating, “My basic, or our basic rule was, if they would come in and say anything favorable at all, then we wanted 'em to come in and say that, whatever it was. Didn’t matter how minimal it might be, it didn’t matter.” See also Rl-12-Exh. 24 at 91 (“I guess we just wanted to find anything that we — anything that anybody could say in any way that was favorable and I didn’t care what it was.... It didn’t matter. If they would say