Full opinion text
HULL, Circuit Judge: Petitioner J.W. Ledford, Jr., a Georgia death-row inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising multiple challenges to his- capital conviction and death sentence. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Led-ford’s claim that he is intellectually disabled and- not subject to execution. Ultimately, the district court found Ledford was not intellectually disabled. Subsequently, the district court denied Ledford’s petition as to his multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, but granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) as to his intellectual disability claim and several claims of ineffective trial counsel in the guilt and penalty phases. Having considered the district court and state court records, the district court’s thorough orders, and the parties’ submissions, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the denial of Ledford’s § 2254 petition. I. CRIME, CONFESSION, AND INDICTMENT A. Murder of Dr; Johnston On January 31, 1992, at some time during mid-afternoon, Antoinette Johnston saw her husband, Dr. Harry Johnston, Jr., a “feeble” 73-year-old physician, drive away in his truck with an unidentified person in the passenger seat. About 15 or 20 minutes after the truck left, Ledford appeared at Mrs. Johnston’s front door, introduced himself, and asked if Dr. Johnston was home. Mrs. Johnston replied that Dr. Johnston was not home, and Led-ford left. About ten minutes later, Led-ford returned to the Johnston residence and asked Mrs. Johnston to tell Dr. Johnston to come to his house later that night. Mrs. Johnston said she would relay the message, and Ledford left. Approximately ten minutes later, Led-ford appeared at Mrs. Johnston’s front door again, but this time he brandished a knife belonging to Dr. Johnston and forced his way into the residence. Ledford put the knife to Mrs. Johnston’s throat, told her that he would kill her; and dem'anded that she give him all of her money and guns. Mrs. Johnston retreated to the bedroom, got her wallet, and gave Ledford what money she had. Ledford then saw a pistol on the bedside table, which belonged to Mrs. Johnston, and took it. Next, Ledford grabbed Mrs. Johnston’s arm and forced her to walk to the kitchen and through the hallwby, where Ledford spotted a rifle, a shotgun, and á second pistol, all belonging to the Johnstons, which he also took. Ledford forced Mrs. Johnston into the bedroom, told her to lie on the bed, threatened to kill her, and tied her hands together with rope. Ledford told Mrs. Johnston that he was doing this “for drugs?’ Finally, Ledford cut the telephone cord in the bedroom, told Mrs. Johnston not to move for ten minutes, gathered the money and guns, and left o,ut the front door. After Ledford left, Mrs. Johnston ran to the front door, locked it, and went to the kitchen where she got, a knife and attempted to cut her bindings loose. She. then went back to the front living .room, looked outside, and saw Ledford backing out. of the driveway in Dr. Johnston’s truck. Dr. Johnston was not in the truck with Led-ford, and Mrs. Johnston was worried about his safety. At approximately 3:45 PM, Mrs. Johnston called the police to report the robbery, and to express worry that Ledford had harmed her husband. After the robbery, Ledford went to a pawn shop and pawned the rifle that he stole from the Johnston residence. He then went to a different pawn shop and pawned the shotgun that he stole from the Johnston residence. Ledford then drove Dr. Johnston’s truck to a convenience store, bought a pack of cigarettes, and left, heading southbound on the 411 highway. At approximately 4:15 PM, law enforcement officers pulled Ledford over on the side of the 411 highway and arrested him. They seized two handguns from the front seat of the truck, a buck knife and another small knife from the passenger’s side floorboard, and- $245 -from Ledford’s pants pocket. - . At approximately 6:00 PM, detectives arrived at the Johnston residence. Dr. Johnston’s body was discovered near-the garage of the residence, partially hidden under some tree limbs. A pool of blood was found in the garage, with a trail of blood leading -to Dr. Johnston’s body. Buckled to Dr. Johnston’s belt was a sheath that would have held the buck knife recovered from the truck during Ledford’s arrest. ■ ,¡ B. Ledford’s Confession While in custody, law enforcement officers advised Ledford of his Miranda rights in writing. Ledford then voluntarily provided a legible and.coherent handwritten statement where he confessed to stabbing'Dr. Johnston. ■ In his written confession, Ledford stated that he went to Dr. Johnston’s house at 2:0Q PM to ask for a ride to the grocery store, which Dr. Johnston agreed to provide. On their way, Dr. Johnston accused Ledford of stealing and then drove the truck back to his. house. According to Ledford, Dr. Johnston got out of the truck, brought Ledford to the side of his garage, and started to “smack” Ledford with his hand, cáusing Ledford to fall to the ground. Ledford stated that Dr. Johnston then pulled a knife from the sheath in his belt and cut Ledford’s hand. In response, Ledford pulled out his -own knife and “stuck” Dr. Johnston in the neck. Led-ford got back on his feet and pulled the knife from Dr., Johnston’s neck, which “went over and cut the shit out of him.” Ledford dragged the body away and covered it up. Next, Ledford stated that he entered the Johnston residence with a knife, tied up Mrs. Johnston, and stole a shotgun, a rifle, two pistols, and some money. He left the Johnston residence in Dr. Johnston’s truck and, at some point, threw his pocket knife out of the window onto the side of the road. Ledford subsequently took law enforcement officers to the site where he disposed of the knife, which the officers recovered. C. Indictment, Appointment of Counsel, and Not-Guilty Plea On February 10, 1992, a state grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ledford with the murder of' Dr. Johnston, felony murder, burglary, kidnapping, and two counts of armed robbery. Ledford pleaded not guilty. On February 19, 1992, the state trial court appointed Sam Little and Matthew Thames to represent Ledford; On March 18, 1992, the prosecutor filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, citing certain aggravating circumstances. II. PRETRIAL MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION On April 28, 1992, attorneys Little and Thames filed a petition for a psychiatric evaluation of Ledford. The state trial court granted the petition and ordered the Georgia Department of Human Resources to examine and evaluate Ledford’s mental health. On June 10, 1992, Dr. Samuel Perri, a licensed psychologist, performed an initial psychological evaluation of Ledford at the county jail, and from June 25; 1992, through the middle of August 1992, Led-ford was evaluated at Central State Hospital. Dr. Perri summarized his findings in a September 10,1992 report. During Dr. Perri’s June 10,1992 evaluation, Ledford was “alért” and “well oriented to person, place, time, and his ... legal situation.” His conversation was “rational, logical and goal directed.” On the Wes-chsler Adult Intelligence Scale — Revised (“WAIS-R”), Ledford scored a 77, which placed him in the “upper part of the borderline range” for mental retardation. Dr. Perri opined that Ledford’s psychological profile suggested that “substance abuse [was] likely” for Ledford. Dr. Perri stated that his evaluation of Ledford “did not reveal any information that would suggest that Mr. Ledford should not be considered legally responsible for his actions as they relate to the charges pending against him.” Dr. Perri found that Ledford had the “mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong.” Led-ford informed Dr. Perri that on the day of Dr. Johnston’s murder, he drank a six-pack of 16-ounce beers, smoked ten joints, and maybe took sóme pills, though he was not sure, and was generally “messed up.” While at Central State Hospital in 1992, Ledford received a skull series, an electroencephalogram, and a brain scan. Dr. Bonfante, a neurologist, reviewed the test results and determined Ledford was “well within normal limits.” During his stay at Central State Hospital, Ledford was “friendly, cooperative and at no time did he show any signs of psychosis or any other severe mental disorder.” Ultimately, Dr. Perri concluded that Ledford was competent to stand trial, understood the charges against him and the potential consequences, had a “good understanding” of basic courtroom procedures and the role of key courtroom personnel, and would be capable of assisting his counsel in his defense. Dr. Perri noted that Ledford had a long history of substance abuse problems, including regular consumption of marijuana, whisky, and beer, and experimental consumption of acid, cocaine, and Quaaludes. Dr. Perri characterized Ledford’s substance abuse as his “most significant finding,” which could be considered mitigating evidence at the penalty phase, if Ledford were found guilty. III. TRIAL — GUILT PHASE A. The State’s Evidence of Guilt The trial commenced on November 9, 1992. The state presented overwhelming evidence of Ledford’s guilt. Mrs. Johnston gave her account of Ledford’s home invasion, the surrounding circumstances, and how she observed Ledford drive away in her husband’s truck. Two pawn shop employees testified that Ledford sold them the rifle and shotgun stolen from the Johnston residence. Law-enforcement officers gave their accounts of Ledford’s arrest, the items seized from Dr; Johnston’s truck,- the discovery of Dr. Johnston’s body, and the discovery of the murder weapon with Led-ford’s assistance. A state witness read Ledford’s written confession to the jury. A forensic serologist testified that, according to a blood enzyme analysis, the blood found on Ledford’s clothes, along with the blood on the knife recovered from the side of the highway; could not have been Led-ford’s, but could have been the blood of Dr. Johnston. Dr. Floyd James, a pathologist, conducted an autopsy of Dr. Johnston’s body. Dr. James testified that Dr. Johnston had a non-fatal inch-long stab wound on his back, a large and deep laceration across the side of his face, a large and deep laceration on the left side of his neck, and several other lacerations on his neck, including one that penetrated his windpipe. The wounds required a significant amount of force to inflict. When presented with the pictures of Dr. Johnston’s wounds, Dr. James stated, “Well, I’m a pathologist and this is rather sickening.” Defense counsel did not object to this testimony. When asked to describe the pictures further, Dr. James stated, “Well, I’ve seen a lot of really bad things in the numerous types of autopsies I’ve seen....” At that point, the judge cut off Dr. James and instructed him not to compare Dr. Johnston’s wounds with other wounds he had seen as a pathologist. Dr. James testified that Dr. Johnston’s death was not instantaneous. Dr. Johnston continued , to bleed to death for approximately eight to nine minutes after the wounds were inflicted. Dr. James testified that Dr. Johnston suffered during that time and that it would have been “extremely painful.” Ledford’s counsel did not contemporaneously object. Rather, on cross-examination, Ledford’s counsel attempted to demonstrate that Dr. Johnston could, have died a lot quicker than Dr. James believed. The next day, Ledford’s counsel moved for a mistrial based on Dr. James’s inflammatory testimony. The state trial court, denied the motion as untimely. In its closing argument, the state, citing Dr. James’s testimony, repeatedly asserted that Dr. Johnston suffered a brutal, long, and agonizing death. B. Ledford’s Defense In his written confession, Ledford stated he acted in self-defense. Ledford’s counsel did not rely on that theory at trial, but instead presented evidence of Ledford’s long history of substance abuse. Counsel argued, primarily, that Ledford was intoxicated when he killed Dr. Johnston and that his intoxication was involuntary because he was coerced into becoming an alcoholic at a very young age. Ledford’s counsel argued, in the alternative, that Ledford’s intoxication, regardless of its voluntary ness, negated the -requisite mem rea for premeditated murder. In the guilt phase, defense counsel presented unrefuted evidence of how Ledford began drinking heavily at age eight. Greg and Tony Headrick, who grew up with Ledford, testified that Ledford began drinking “a pretty good bit” of beer at the age of eight, and began smoking marijuana at the age of ten. Ronnie Jones, another childhood Mend, testified that Ledford began drinking alcohol at the age of eight. Robert Lee Pack, Jr., another childhood friend, offered similar testimony and further testified that he had observed Led-ford use “speed” and “acid.” Ledford’s older sister testified that Led-ford’s mother was always at work, leaving the children with their alcoholic father. Ledford’s sister “got [Ledford] to drinking” when he was eight years old. Led-ford’s sister would drink with the young Ledford nearly every weekend. Ledford’s sister also testified that their father did not care that his children drank alcohol. In fact, Ledford’s father dealt drugs out of the family home and exposed his children to marijuana and Quaaludes at an early age. Nancy DeLoach, an employee at a Georgia substance abuse treatment facility, testified that for four days in November 1991,' Ledford received treatment for detoxification from cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol. The trial evidence indicated that Led-ford consumed alcohol and drugs on- the day of the murder. There was a general consensus that Ledford- consumed three to six beers and smoked between two and ten marijuana joints between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM- on January 31, 1992. A pawn shop employee and -one police detective smelled alcohol on Ledford’s breath that afternoon. . Defense counsel employed Dr. Dennis Lloyd Herendeen, a licensed psychologist, who testified about Ledford’s mental health and that Ledford became involuntarily addicted to alcohol at age eight. Prior to the trial, Dr. Herendeen interviewed many of Ledford’s family members and familiarized himself with various materials, including several transcribed statements of Ledford’s acquaintances, reports concerning the murder of Dr. Johnston, transcripts of an interview with Ledford, a copy of Ledford’s substance abuse treatment records, and Dr. Perri’s September 10,1992 report. On November 8, 1992, the day before trial, Dr. Herendeen interviewed Ledford for approximately nine hours and performed a comprehensive psychological battery, including the Shipley Institute of Living Scale, on which Ledford scored an 85, and the revised version of the Wide Range Achievement Test. Dr. Herendeen performed various other tests and fed the results ihto a computer program that returned a psychological profile. Dr. Heren-deen concluded that Ledford suffered from chemical dependency, antisocial personality disorder, and organic thought disorder induced by substance abuse. According to Dr. Herendeen, Ledford’s substance abuse problems would have caused him to be in an “altered state” on the day of Dr. Johnston’s death. Dr. Herendeen recounted Ledford’s family history to the jury. Ledford grew up “relatively unsupervised” with “inadequate parenting” and “a lot of neglect.” When.he was only six years old, Ledford tried to bring a loaded rifle to school. Importantly, Dr. Herendeen testified that Ledford became involuntarily addicted to alcohol at the age of eight. According to Dr. Herendeen, Ledford continued to suffer from an involuntary alcohol' addiction into adulthood, which ' affected certain practical life skills, such as the ability to get and hold a job. Dr. Herendeen also testified that Led-ford had an “extensive history of chemical abuse,” starting at age 11, which included the use of marijuana, LSD, amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, tranquilizers, prescription pills, and heroin. Dr. Herendeen testified that Ledford began selling personal property at a young age in order to sustain his drug habit. Dr. Herendeen opined that Ledford’s addictions would have interfered with his judgment. Dr. Herendeen estimated that Ledford had an. IQ of about 85, which would put him in the “low average range of. intelligence.” While Ledford was 20 at the time of Dr. Johnston’s death, Dr. Herendeen opined that Ledford only had the intellectual and cognitive functioning of a 13-year-old. C. Testimony of Dr. Perri After the defense rested, the'state trial court called Dr. Perri, as a witness for the court, to testify about Ledford’s mental health. Dr. Perri’s testimony was consistent with his pretrial report. Namely, Dr. Perri testified that Ledford was cooperative, rational, logical, and able to answer questions “in a very good manner.” Dr. Perri testified that Ledford understood the charges pending against him, suffered from no delusional compulsion, and understood that killing was wrong. ’ Dr. Perri opined that Ledford was neither criminally insane' nor mentally retarded. Dr. Perri testified that Ledford’s IQ was between"70 and 80, which was on the “upper end” of the “borderline range,” but did not indicate mental retardation. Dr. Perri, in fact, "supported Ledford’s defense that he was a child-alcoholic and was impaired on the day of Dr. Johnston’s murder. Dr. Perri testified that Ledford had a severe drug and alcohol problem that started at the- age of ten. Ledford told. Dr.- Perri -that-he would not have killed Dr. Johnston if he “was not messed up.” • Ledford also told Dr. Perri that he' had six 16-ounce cans of beer and ten marijuana joints, on.the morning of January 31,1992.. During examination, by the state, Dr. Perri téstified that Ledford received a skull series, an electroencephalogram, -and a brain scan while in state custody at Central State Hospital.. Dr. Bonfante, the consulting neurologist, reviewed those tests and determined that Ledford did not suffer from any organic difficulties or neurological damage. D. Closing Arguments In closing, Ledford’s attorneys argued that Ledford was. intoxicated when he killed Dr. Johnston, which absolved him of guilt in two ways. Ledford’s counsel first argued that because Ledford was intoxicated, he was behaving irrationally and, therefore, lacked the requisite intent to commit murder. To support this contention, Ledford’s counsel pointed out that Ledford took a chicken out of the freezer to defrost and later cook, which suggested that Ledford had not planned to kill Dr. Johnston that day. Ledford’s counsel argued that Ledford performed a series of strange actions on the day of Dr. Johnston’s murder — killing Dr. Johnston in a fairly sloppy manner, poorly hiding the body, introducing himself to Mrs. Johnston, taking Dr. Johnston’s truck, and driving Dr. Johnston’s truck into town — all of which suggested that Ledford was acting irrationally and without premeditation. Second, Ledford’s counsel argued that Ledford became involuntarily addicted to alcohol at the early age of eight and, therefore, was involuntarily intoxicated when he killed Dr. Johnston, which absolved him of guilt. In closing, the prosecutor emphasized that Dr. Johnston was “butchered worse than you would butcher a hog,” and that he “lived eight or nine minutes ... in ... agony and pain.” E. Jury Instructions and Verdict The state trial court charged the jury with standard instructions, including several related to intoxication and criminal responsibility. On the one hand, the state trial court instructed the jury that voluntary intoxication was not an excuse for any criminal act, and that alcoholism is not involuntary and is no defense to any criminal act. On the other hand, the state trial court further instructed that “[i]f the influence of alcohol ... impairs a person’s mind to the extent that the person is not able to form an intent to do the act charged, that person would not be criminally responsible for the act.” The jury found Ledford guilty of murder, two counts of armed robbery, burglary, and kidnapping, and not guilty of felony murder. IV. TRIAL — PENALTY PHASE At the penalty phase, Ledford’s counsel resubmitted the evidence presented at the guilt phase and called Mattie Ledford, his mother, to testify. Mrs. Ledford testified that Ledford’s father abused drugs and alcohol when Ledford was young and that she was frequently away from home, working 12-hour shifts to provide for her seven children. Mrs. Ledford testified that her son drank as a child, though she did not know about it at the time. Mrs. Ledford testified that her son smoked marijuana and, in November 1991, sought treatment for his substance abuse problems. According to Mrs. Ledford, Ledford grew up with much love for those around him and would frequently help neighbors with chores. Mrs. Ledford stated that she loved her son, believed that treatment would help him, and pleaded that he be spared the death penalty. At the penalty phase, trial counsel Little had several other witnesses lined up to testify on Ledford’s behalf. But Ledford’s mother testified first and her testimony made nine to eleven jurors cry, along with the rest of the courtroom. Little found Mrs. Ledford’s testimony so emotionally compelling that no other witnesses were needed to present mitigating evidence. On November 14, 1992, the jury unanimously recommended imposition of the death penalty. The jury found four statutory aggravating circumstances: (1) the offense of murder was committed while Ledford was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, namely armed robbery; (2) the offense of murder was committed while Ledford was engaged in the commission of aggravated battery; (3) the offense of murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhumane in that it involved torture to the victim prior to the death of the victim; and (4) the offense of murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhumane in that it involved aggravated battery of the victim prior to the death of the victim. The state trial court sentenced Ledford to death. V.DIRECT APPEAL On direct appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Ledford’s convictions and death sentence. Ledford v. State, 264 Ga. 60, 439 S.E.2d 917 (1994). Ledford filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied. Ledford v. Georgia, 513 U.S. 1085, 115 S.Ct. 740, 130 L.Ed.2d 641 (1995). VI.STATE HABEAS PETITION In 1995, Ledford, pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. § 9-14-41, in the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia. Ledford subsequently obtained counsel and filed an amended petition in 1997. Ledford alleged, among other things, that his trial attorneys were ineffective because they (1) failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation into Ledford’s personal background, including his history of substance abuse, mental illness, and mental impairment, and potential related defenses; (2) failed to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase; (3) failed to timely retain and properly prepare testifying expert witnesses; (4) failed to object to the admission of evidence and remarks by the prosecution; and (5) failed to present evidence that Ledford’s intoxication negated the mens rea necessary for murder and, instead, improperly relied upon the defense of involuntary intoxication. Led-ford alleged that he is intellectually disabled, which would bar his death sentence. VII.EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN STATE HABEAS COURT On April 23, 1998, the state court held an evidentiary hearing on Ledford’s amended habeas petition. Ledford submitted affidavits from 13 lay witnesses and three’ experts. He called trial counsel Little and Thames as witnesses. Ledford also submitted copious records, including his medical records, substance abuse treatment records, school records, court records, Georgia Department- of Corrections records, Georgia Bureau of Investigation records, his inmate file,- Dr: Johnston’s autopsy report, and Mrs. Ledford’s social services file. A. Lay Witness Affidavits Ledford introduced 13 affidavits from friends and family members to show available mitigating evidence at the penalty phase that his trial attorneys failed to present. While several trial witnesses had offered testimony regarding Ledford’s background and upbringing, these affidavits provided more detail. Most of the affiants were never asked to testify at trial. ' According to the affidavits, Ledford had a rough childhood. He grew up in a poor, rural, mountain community in Georgia with six sisters and little supervision. Ledford’s father abused drugs and alcohol, was frequently absent, and when present, sold drugs out of the family home. Led-ford’s mother was typically away at work, leaving Ledford either unsupervised or with his father. Ledford’s home was very unstable, and he would frequently stay with neighbors or other family members. Ledford’s father would occasionally enter into a drunken rage, chase the children around with a gun, and threaten to kill them. On one occasion, Ledford’s father held a gun tp his head and threatened to kill himself in front of Ledford. On another occasion, he chased Ledford’s mother down the street and shot at her. He frequently beat the children, leaving bruises and welts. While Ledford was a sweet, loving, and well-behaved child, he had no supervision. As a result, he began abusing drugs-and alcohol at a .very - young age. Ledford’s sister recalled that he vomited from drinking when he was eight years old. Led-ford’s father gave him drugs during his childhood. Eventually, Ledford would use any drug made available to him, including acid, crack, and cocaine, and was heavily into drugs as a teenager. On one occasion, Ledford accidentally shot off his finger while high. Despite his addictions, Led-ford desperately wanted to get sober. At one point, Ledford told his mothér that he would kijl himself if he did not get help. .-Ledford had several positive relationships with his neighbors and family members. He would frequently help neighbors with their chores, babysit for neighbors, commit acts of chivalry for his sisters, and was generally happiest when helping others. • He expressed an interest in joining the Peace Corps. In 1989, Ledford’s close friend was murdered, which he took “very hard.” Ledford was not very smart and had trouble with school. He had trouble reading, failed the first grade, and was twice held back á grade. During middle school, an older woman frequently signed him out of class so that they could drink together. Ledford dropped out when he was 16, during his freshman year of high school. When he was 17, Ledford worked at a carpet mill counting spools of carpet. He also worked at a lumber mill where he loaded lumber into a mill to be cut. . He was fired from the lumber mill because the foreman caught him smoking marijuana. In the months, leading up to Dr. Johnston’s death, Ledford began acting very strangely. He was heavily abusing drugs and became increasingly irrational and paranoid. Family members were shocked that .Ledford killed Dr. Johnston. B. Affidavit of Dr. Herendeen Dr. Herendeen’s affidavit concerned his role as the expert psychologist at Led-ford’s trial. According to Dr. Herendeen, on October 28, 1992, Ledford’s trial attorneys contacted him and asked him to evaluate Ledford for his upcoming death penalty trial. On November 8, 1992, Dr. Herendeen evaluated. Ledford and briefly interviewed six of his family members. Dr. Herendeen was provided with some records but never received a medical history. Dr. Herendeen performed a Rorschach evaluation and processed the results though a computer program, which indicated that Ledford required neuropsychological testing. ■ While it was unusual for the computer to report such a finding,-‘further tests were not performed. Dr. Herendeen testified that he did not have Ledford’s school records, and he would have performed a comprehensive intelligence battery if he had had more time. Dr, Herendeen believed that, he had insufficient time ■ and information to adequately assess Ledford’s mental functioning. He testified that Ledford’s attorneys never discussed their trial strategy with him, never asked how Ledford’s mental health might , impact the intent required to commit murder, never discussed the existence of an intellectual disability, and never went over the questions for his direct examination. C. Dr. Herendeen’s November. 10, 1992 Draft Report On November 10, 1992, the second day of trial, Dr. Herendeen prepared a draft report of Ledford’s mental health, which he gave to counsel Little and Thames. According to the report, Ledford was cooperative, capable of reading and understanding test items, and had an eighth-grade reading level, a third-grade spelling level, and a seventh-grade arithmetic level. After he dropped out of school, Ledford held several unskilled jobs where he would “work on the job long enough to get a paycheck,” but would then get “drunk ,or messed up” and lose the job. At the time of his arrest, .Ledford was living with ;his grandmother and “taking care of her.” D. Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit of Dr. Marc Zimmerman On February 20, 1998, Marc Zimmerman, a licensed clinical psychologist, evaluated Ledford for five hours and concluded that Ledford is intellectually disabled. Dr. Zimmerman administered the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition (“WAIS-III”). Ledford scored 76 on the verbal scale and ■ 65 on the performance scale, yielding a- full-scale score of 69, which indicates “significantly subaverage general intellectual function,- and is- within the range of mental retardation.” Led-ford’s- WAIS-III score was consistént with Dr, Zimmerman’s clinical impressions. ■ - Dr. Zimmerman administered additional neuropsychological evaluations and screening tests. Dr. Zimmerman testified that (1) the Short Category Test,-which is a non-verbal test of learning ability, indicated that- Ledford suffered from some degree of brain damage, (2) the Screening Test for the Luria-Nebraska -Neuropsy-chological Battery indicated that Ledford suffered from “significant neurological de-fíeieñcies,” and (3) the Benton Visual Retention Test, which measures cerebral dysfunction, indicated that Ledford suffered from a type'-of brain dysfunction that is seen in the intellectually disabled. Dr. Zimmerman recounted Ledford’s school records, which indicated that he was held back in first and third grades, received failing grades in fourth grade, and failed all subjects in high' school before dropping out. Ledford had a “sketchy” work history, performing low level jobs that required minimal skill. Zimmerman found that Ledford “showed a substantial inability to demonstrate daily living skills at án age appropriate level.” ■ Zimmerman concluded that Ledford suffered from “significant deficits in the adaptive skill areas of social/interpersonal skills, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, and health and safety.” • Dr. Zimmerman identified several potential causes of Ledford’s intellectual disability. He opined that (1) Ledford’s abuse of drugs and alcohol significantly retarded his developmental functions; (2) organic brain damage caused by two head injuries resulting in •’unconsciousness may have contributed to the development of Ledford’s intellectual disability; (3) Led-ford’s intellectual disability may be congenital, as records indicated that Ledford’s mother had tested at the borderline or mild range of intellectual disability; and (4) Ledford’s unsupervised upbringing in a low socio-economic class may have contributed to his deficient intellectual development. On April 20, 1998, Dr. Zimmerman evaluated ■ Ledford for approximately five hours and performed additional neuropsy-chological testing. Ledford achieved a composite IQ score of 66 on the Kaufmann Adult and Adolescent Intelligence Test. Dr.- Zimmerman opined that under the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Test, Ledford’s brain dysfunction was diffuse and could not be localized in a particular area of the brain, which Dr. Zimmerman stated was typical of mental retardation. E. Affidavit of Dr. Susan Fiester On July 31, 1997, Dr.. Susan Fiester, a psychiatrist, examined Ledford for six hours. At the outset of her affidavit, Dr. Fiester noted the following with respect to Ledford’s background:. (1) Ledford suffered “significant, birth trauma,” having been delivered by Caesarean section -and having almost died at birth; (2) Ledford suffered more than 15 episodes of head trauma throughout his life, many of which involved significant trauma and loss of. consciousness; (3) many of Ledford’s family members suffered from substance abuse problems and psychiatric illness; (4) Led-ford himself had substance abuse problems and suffered “severe consequences” from his drug use, including job loss; and (5) in 1992, Ledford typically ingested eight to ten milligrams of Xanax per day, but had only taken two milligrams on the day of the murder. Dr. Fiester concluded that, due to Ledford’s .acute intoxication and Xanax withdrawal, it was “highly unlikely, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, .that [he] formed an intent to kill his victim.” Dr. Fiester opined that Ledford should have received more comprehensive neu-ropsychological testing by Dr. Herendeen and other professionals prior to trial. Dr. Fiester opined that Ledford’s rough childhood, academic problems, birth trauma, head trauma, and genetic predisposition to psychiatric and substance abuse disorders should have been presented as mitigating factors during the penalty phase. F. Testimony of Sam Little (Trial Counsel) Sam Little, one of Ledford’s trial attorneys, testified that prior to 1992 he had tried over 100 cases in state and federal court, including some murder cases. Led-ford was his first death penalty case. In preparation for the penalty phase, Little interviewed Ledford, Ledford’s family members, Dr. Herendeen, Dr. Perri, members of law enforcement, and other witnesses; Little hired a private investigator to identify witnesses and’ investigate Led-ford’s background, family members, and history of substance abuse. The private investigator interviewed Ledford, who provided names of people who were familiar with his childhood and substance abuse problems. Based on Ledford’s disclosures, the private investigator interviewed approximately 15-20 non-family witnesses. Little asked Ledford’s friends and family members to write down what they knew about Ledford, including his upbringing and family relationships, so that he could obtain information that he “couldn’t find out from just talking to them cold.” Little received written statements from all of Ledford’s adult family members, including Ledford’s mother and sisters. Little read all the statements, and learned that Ledford had a very tough childhood, with the onset of substance abuse problems at a very early age, caused primarily by the introduction of drugs and alcohol by his father and other family members. No family member ever informed Little that Ledford’s birth was difficult or traumatic. One of Ledford’s sister’s , written statements provided vague information regarding head injuries Led-ford had suffered. Little testified that there was nothing “critical” or “significant” about the head injuries, otherwise he “would have looked into it.” After determining that self-defense was not a viable option, counsel Little decided that Ledford’s primary defense would be that he involuntarily developed alcoholism when he was eight years old and, therefore, was involuntarily intoxicated on the day he killed Dr. Johnston. Little knew that voluntary intoxication was not a defense to murder. • Thus, it was critical to demonstrate that, because of his childhood, Ledford was involuntarily intoxicated on the day of Dr. Johnston’s murder. Little wanted to show the jury that Ledford was “so far out of it [that he did] not know what he was doing.” Little vetted the strategy in detail with attorney Mike Mears, a capital trial expert. While Mr. Mears did not seem to like the strategy, he also appeared to believe that it was “the only thing [Little] had going.” To prove Ledford’s defense, Little retained Dr.' Herendeen as an expert witness. Little informed Dr. Herendeen of Ledford’s involuntary intoxication defense and asked him to evaluate Ledford. While Little contemplated retaining another expert to evaluate Ledford’s “mental situation,” he decided not to, as “the whole thing was about the involuntary intoxication.” Still, Little asked Dr. Herendeen to evaluate Ledford’s general mental health. Dr. Herendeen met with Little and Ledford’s family members before trial. Dr. Herendeen never indicated to Little that he needed more time or additional records to complete his evaluation of Led-ford. G. Testimony of Matthew Thames (Trial Counsel) Matthew Thames, Little’s co-counsel, testified that prior to 1992, he had practiced law for four or five years, doing about five to ten civil trials per year. He had . never handled a murder case. Thames and Little conducted independent research. Thames agreed.that the only plausible defense was to .demonstrate that Ledford had a bad upbringing and history of chronic substance abuse, which would be applicable to all phases of the trial. In fact, the bulk of the background.and substance abuse evidence was introduced in the guilt phase in order to get “that evidence out to the jury as soon as possible.” Thames agreed with Little that Mrs. Led-ford’s penalty phase testimony was sufficiently compelling, such that calling more witnesses would be unnecessarily cumulative and potentially detrimental. Counsel Thames held the primary responsibility for retaining and preparing a mental health expert for trial. At an October 7, 1992, strategy meeting, Mr. Mears provided ' Little with Dr. Herendeen’s name. On October 27,1992, Little wrote a note to Thames,. informing him that Mr. Mears suggested they contact Dr. Heren-deen. By that point, Thames and Little had attempted to contact at least, one other mental health expert. That expert could not provide an opinion, beneficial to Led-ford. On October 28, 1992, approximately two weeks before trial, Thames contacted Dr. Herendeen, told him their theory of the case, and asked him to evaluate Ledford. Thames wanted to elicit testimony that would apply to both the guilt and penalty phases.' 'After speaking with Dr. Heren-deen, Little and Thames were “very impressed.” The state trial court authorized funds to retain Dr. Herendeen. To prepare for trial, Thames reviewed Dr. Herendeen’s draft report with him, went over which points would be covered at trial, took notes, and generally prepared him to testify. Dr. Herendeen never told Thames that he needed more time to eval-' uate Ledford or prepare his testimony. Thames testified that he and Little agreed that their general trial strategy was to not object to “every little thing,” but only to “the big things,” as they both believed that frequent objections leave a bad impression with the jury. . VIII. STATE COURT’S EVIDENTIA-RY RULING AND DENIAL OF HA-BEAS CORPUS PETITION On October 8, 1998, the state habeas court issued a two-page order ruling that the lay witness and expert witness affidavits were all inadmissible and would not be considered. ' The only admissible evidence was Little’s and Thames’s testimony and the background documents. On July 27, 1999, the state habeas court denied Ledford’s amended habeas petition. The state habeas court found that the evidence did not show that Ledford was mentally retarded. The court addressed Led-ford’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, as recounted below in relevant part. A; Guilt Phase Ineffective-Assistance Claims The state habeas court found that trial counsel’s decision to object only to flagrant misconduct or error and abstain from frequent objections was strategic in nature, did not amount to ineffective assistance, and, nevertheless, was not prejudicial. The state habeas court found that the medical examiner’s gratuitous testimony was cured by the trial court’s sua sponte instruction that he not continue his statement and, nevertheless, was not prejudicial. ' The state habeas court concluded that trial counsel’s delay in retaining Dr. Her-endeen did not prejudice Ledford’s case because Dr. Herendeen still examined Ledford, interviewed his family members, and obtained test results that mirrored Dr. Perri’s. As to Dr. Herendeen’s alleged unreadiness, the state habeas court found that trial counsel was not deficient because Dr. Herendeen had unfettered access to Ledford’s records, met with trial counsel, and never stated that he needed more time or additional records to prepare for trial. The state habeas court concluded that trigl counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to investigate more, and present evidence of, Ledford’s intellectual disability. The state habeas court noted that comprehensive psychological testing and evaluation from Dr. Pern and Dr. Herendeen revealed that Ledford’s IQ fell within the borderline and low average range of intelligence, which indicated that Ledford did not suffer from an intellectual disability. The state habeas court found that the neurological tests performed at Central State Hospital did not indicate that Ledford suffered from organic brain damage. The state habeas court found that it was not unreasonable for trial counsel to decide not to further investigate the issue or retain additional expert witnesses. With respect to, trial counsel’s allegedly deficient intoxication defense, the state ha-beas court found that, after conducting research and exploring their options,,trial counsel reasonably relied, upon the only defense that they believed was viable. The state habeas court assumed arguendo that trial, counsel had failed to argue that Ledford’s intoxication tended to negate his intent to commit murder and - concluded that this hypothetical deficiency did not prejudice the.outcome of the trial because (1) there was “ample evidence in the record to support the jury’s implicit conclusion that Ledford was not intoxicated on the day of Dr. Johnston’s murder,” and (2) the trial court nevertheless instructed the jury as to the relationship between intent and intoxication. B. Penalty Phase Ineffective-Assistance Claims The state habeas court concluded that trial counsel Little and Thames were deficient neither in investigating Ledford’s background nor in presenting mitigating evidence in the penalty phase. The state habeas court found that trial counsel spent a considerable amount of time investigating potential mitigating evidence that might prove helpful at the penalty phasé. The state habeas court found that trial counsel intérviewed family members and asked them to submit written statements containing everything they knew about Ledford, including his background and family life. The state habeas court found that trial counsel hired a- private investigator to gather facts about Ledford’s background. The state habeas court concluded that trial counsel properly relied on the reports of Dr. Perri and Dr. Herendeen to determine the best mental health defense in mitigation of the death penalty. The state habeas court also concluded that trial counsel’s decision to-call no further witnesses after Mrs. Ledford’s testimony, which made nine to eleven jurors cry, was a tactical one to be afforded considerable deference. IX. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO APPEAL AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI In 1999, Ledford filed an application, for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, which the Georgia Supreme Court denied in 2001. Ledford filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in 2002. X. AMENDED 28 U.S.U § 2254 PETITION On -February 28, 2003, Ledford filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ledford alleged, inter alia, that the state habeas court unreasonably ruled that his affidavits were inadmissible, which deprived him of a fair hearing.- Ledford asked the district court to conduct a new evidentiary'hearing on all claims. 'The district court ordered the parties to brief the issue. , In an October 13, 2006' order, the district court granted Ledford’s request for an evidentiary hearing on these claims: (1) whether Ledford is mentally retarded; and (2)-whether trial counsel was unreasonable in failing to investigate and present evidence of Ledford’s mental retardation at trial. XI. SECTION 2254 EVIDENTIARY HEARING — LEDFORD’S EVIDENCE On April 9, 2007, the three-day eviden-tiary hearing began.. To show his intellectual disability, Ledford presented testimony from two lay witnesses (Wilson and Cooper) and five experts (Tasse, Eber, Fiester, Herendeen, and Zimmerman). Ledford also filed ten lay witness affidavits from teachers and employers. Both parties submitted numerous exhibits. We recount Ledford’s lay witnesses and then his experts. A. Testimony of Gordon Wilson Gordon Wilson, a neighbor and greenhouse operator who had known Ledford since birth, testified that he hired Ledford to work for him as a seasonal employee after Ledford dropped out of high school. According to Wilson, Ledford worked hard, but his only duties were to move plant material into the greenhouse and to load and unload trucks. Wilson testified that he later moved Ledford to a permanent position on the landscape crew, which required him to move large plants and dig holes. Wilson further testified that one morning, two months prior to Dr. Johnston’s murder, Ledford became uncharacteristically disruptive while loading a truck, so Wilson fired him. B. Testimony of Eddie Cooper Eddie Cooper, an owner of a forestry equipment company, testified that he hired an 18-year-old Ledford as an intermittent part-time employee for a year or two. According to Cooper, Ledford’s work duties involved cleaning equipment, washing equipment with a pressure washer, maintaining the landscape, and handing tools to mechanics. Ledford never ordered products, used the cash register, or helped with machinery repair, as Cooper believed that Ledford was “a little slow,” and . those tasks “would have been a little above what .... he was capable of doing.” Cooper testified that Ledford was a good employee who completed assigned tasks, but he was not proactive and always required instructions regarding what to do next. Cooper never detected that Ledford was abusing drugs or alcohol while at work. Cooper testified that on one occasion, a few weeks before Dr. Johnston’s murder, Cooper ran into Ledford at a convenience store and suspected that he was on drugs. C.Lay Witness Affidavits Ledford submitted ten affidavits from teachers and employers about his intellectual functioning. In elementary school, Ledford had difficulty paying attention, missed social cues, performed poorly, and was frequently absent. Still, he put forth his best effort but simply could not comprehend the work. Ledford would have been held back in the third grade more than once, but a county rule allowed only one retention for each grade. Ledford’s fifth grade teacher referred him to “resource services,” which were the services for mentally retarded students. In middle school, Ledford paid attention, stayed out of trouble, tried hard, and was not excessively; absent. He struggled with almost all subjects and received failing or near-failing grades across the board. Certain teachers would lower the achievement requirements for passing to the next grade so that Ledford would not fail out of school. Certain teachers would grade Ledford on effort rather than academic achievement. Ledford had difficulty counting money, reading, and doing math. Among other jobs, Ledford worked for a roofer fqr about a year, on and off, performing manual labor. While he always did what he was told, his boss would often have to give him multiple instructions, and Ledford would still make repeated mistakes. D. Testimony of Dr; Marc Tasse Dr. Marc Tasse, a psychologist specializing in developmental disabilities, did not examine or evaluate Ledford, but he did provide general background information regarding the academic field of mental retardation. Dr. Tasse defined mental retardation as a “disability characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior” that develops before the age of 18 years, which mostly mirrors Georgia’s legal definition of mental retardation. According to Dr. Tasse, most standardized IQ tests are standardized with a score of 100, and any score of 70 or below indicates “significant sub-average intellectual functioning.” Dr. Tasse noted that IQ tests are not perfect and, at a score of 70, there is typically a measurement of error of approximately 5 points, with a confidence interval of 95%. Dr. Tasse had taught classes on how to administer properly an IQ test. According to Dr. Tasse, when administering the WAIS-III, the examiner must write down all of the test-taker’s responses. The examiner must also record his or her clinical observations of the test-taker’s performance and strategies. The examiner does not score certain portions of the test until the entire test is complete. According to Dr. Tasse, if the responses are not clearly recorded, then the examiner may make mistakes when later scoring the test. Dr. Tasse explained his opinion that IQ tests are subject to “the Flynn effect.” Dr. Tasse testified that the “Flynn effect,” named after political scientist Dr. James Flynn, is an empirical observation that IQ scores are rising over time, such that an individual who scored a 100 on an IQ test 20 years ago may score a 106 today if administered the same test. Dr. Tasse explained-that, according to Dr. Flynn, IQ scores have been rising at a rate of approximately three ppints per decade, or 0.3 points per year, from the date on which the IQ test was nobmed. Thus, according to Dr. Tasse, if an individual takes an IQ test many years after it was' normed, the resulting score is artificially inflated. Dr. Zimmerman, another proponent of the Flynn éffect, testified that in order to correct this artificial inflation, an individtial’s IQ score should be reduced by 0.3 points for every year that has passed between the date a test was normed and the date the individual took that test. Dr. Tasse testified that, other than historical changes in intelligence norms, there is no consensus as to why this rise in IQs is occurring. Nevertheless, Dr. Tasse opined that the application of the Flynn effect to all IQ tests is generally accepted in the scientific community. Dr. Tasse testified that in order to offset the Flynn effect, test-makers frequently re-normalizé standardized IQ tests, which can take several years. -According to Dr. Tasse, the Flynn effect applies equally, if not more, to mentally retarded individuals. , Dr. Tasse turned to adaptive behavior— the second prong of mental retardation. Dr.- Tasse. identified ten categories of adaptive behavior: communication, self-care, home living, social interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction,, functional academic skills, work, leisure, -and health and safety. According to Dr. Tasse, various tests can measure an individual’s adaptive behavior, which is measured against a social mean. Some tests involve self-reporting, while others involve interviews with friends and family members. Dr. Tasse opined that self-reporting individuals may overstate their abilities and, therefore, it is best to complement a self-reported test with family interviews and other corroborating evidence. Dr. Tasse opined that long-term incarceration can make an individual’s adaptive behavior scores less accurate. Dr. Tasse testified that while mentally retarded individuals often have significant impairments in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior, those impairments may co-exist with strengths in certain areas, such as communication, social skills, and practical skills. Dr. Tasse opined that these strengths often appear in individuals who fall within the borderline range of mental, retardation.. E. Affidavit of Dr. Herbert Eber Dr. Herbert Eber, a prison psychologist, averred that in 1992, Ledford scored an 86 on a modified Culture Fair Intelligence Test (“Culture Fair”). The Culture Fair was part of a test battery administered by non-psychologists to inmates in a large room in groups of 30 or more inmates at a time. According to Dr. Eber, the Culture Fair performed on Ledford was not designed tó measure his individual IQ, but rather to “assess [his] general aptitude ... so as to more appropriately place him in a prison program.” Dr. Eb'er testified that the 1992 Culture Fair did not measure reading skills, was untimed, and was not properly normed,- meaning “the scores obtained ... ha[d] absolutely no validity in determining general intellectual functioning” and were “not valid for the purpose of diagnosing or ruling out mental retardation.” F. Testimony of Dr. Fiester Dr. Fiester testified that, since her 1998 affidavit, she had reviewed additional medical records, test results, and affidavits, and had personally interviewed a" number of Ledford’s family members- and teachers. Relying on this additional information' and Dr. Zimmerman’s tests, Dr. Fies-ter concluded that Ledford was mentally retarded. Dr. Fiester concluded that Dr. Zimmerman’S tests indicated that Ledford suffers from significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning. Dr. Fiester opined that Ledford suffers from limitations in three of the ten domains of adaptive functioning: work, functional academics, and self-direction. According to Dr. Fiester, Ledford’s work history reflected that he had difficulty keeping a job for a long period of time. And when working, Ledford only performed jobs that required “absolutely minimal skills.” Dr. Fiester understood that Ledford required repeated instruction on how to carry out simple tasks and, even then, he made mistakes. These problems indicated to Dr. Fiester that Ledford suffered from an adaptive deficit in the work domain.- From school records, Dr. Fiester observed that Ledford failed the first grade, avoided, a repeat failure but for a “social promotion,” failed the third grade, again avoided a repeat failure due to a “social promotion,” and twice failed. ninth grade before dropping out. Dr. Fiester noted that Ledford struggled with math and reading and had no motivation to complete assignments. She noted that Ledford was not placed in a special education program, but said those classes were reserved for students with severe physical and mental disabilities. Still, Dr. Fiester concluded that Ledford’s school performance indicated adaptive deficits in functional academics. Dr. Fiester understood that Ledford never had a long-term job, never advanced within a job, had no long-term goals, never saved money, and simply lived on a day-today basis. All of this indicated to Dr. Fiester that Ledford had a significant adaptive deficit in self-direction. Dr. Fiester testified that Ledford suffers from certain adaptive deficits that did not necessarily qualify as significant. For example, Dr. Fiester believed that (1) Led-ford has' problems communicating, especially in writing; (2) as a child, he could not perform complex leisure activities, such as playing games and dancing; and (3) as a child, he had poor social skills and would easily be taken advantage of. G. Testimony of Dr. Herendeen Dr. Herendeen testified that trial counsel first contacted him regarding Ledford’s case on October 28, 1992 — twelve days before Ledford’s trial. Dr. Herendeen personally evaluated Ledford the day before the trial began. Dr. Herendeen stated that'Thames and Little never asked him to determine whether Ledford was mentally retarded. Dr. Herendeen testified that on November 10, 1992, which was the second day of trial, he provided. Little and Thames with the written draft report regarding his evaluation of Ledford. According to Dr. Her-endeen, • after receiving .the report, Little and Thames did not ask him whether Led-ford was mentally retarded. ,Dr. Heren-deen testified that Little and Thames did not prepare him for his trial testimony. Still, Dr. Herendeen admitted that, while he did not meet Little and Thames face to face, they did have a- telephone conversation. H. Testimony of Dr. Zimmerman Dr. Zimmerman began his testimony by recounting the information contained in his 1998 affidavits, including Ledford’s score of 69 on the WAIS-III, his score of 66 on the Kaufman test, and his ultimate conclusion that Ledford is mentally retarded. He testified that he, administered the WAIS-III test in 1998 because it was only out for a. year and, was recently normed. He then administered the Kaufman.test to corroborate the WAIS-III test. According to Dr,. Zimmerman, there was no evidence of malingering during the 1998. evaluation. Dr.. Zimmerman addressed the higher IQ scores that Ledford obtained in tests administered by other psychologists and opined that they did not contradict his conclusion that Ledford is mentally retarded, either because of the Flynn effect or because the- particular test is not a proper measure of IQ for mental retardation. Dr. Zimmerman did admit, upon examination by the court, that it is not a typical practice to incorporate the Flynn effect into someone’s IQ score when drafting a clinical report. Still, he asserted. that the Flynn effect is an accepted phenomenon in the psychological community. Dr. Zimmerman indicated that he was aware that Dr. Perri administered a WAIS-R test in 1992, on which Ledford scored a 77. Dr. Zimmerman discounted that test because (1) it was administered 14 years after it was normed and (2) when Dr. Zimmerman adjusted for the Flynn effect, Ledford would have scored approximately a 73, which was within the standard error of measurement for intellectually disabled individuals. Similarly, Dr. Zimmerman opined that Ledford’s score of 85 on Dr. Herendeen’s Shipley test was not contrary to his findings, as the Shipley test had not been normed in over 50 years and, regardless, the Shipley test is a group test that is not a good measure of IQ. Dr. Zimmerman recognized that a prison psychiatrist administered a Culture Fair test on Ledford, which yielded a score of 85. According to Dr. Zimmerman, the Culture Fair is not an-appropriate test to measure IQ, as it is not properly normed or individually administered. In 2005 and 2006, Dr. Zimmerman interviewed five of Ledford’s sisters and his parents, reviewed all post-1998 lay witness and expert affidavits, and administered the Vineland Adaptive Behavioral Scales (“Vineland”) to one of Ledford’s sisters to assess Ledford’s adaptive functioning. Dr. Zimmerman determined that Ledford suffered from adaptive functioning deficits in the areas of functional academics, work, and self-direction. Dr. Zimmerman noted that Ledford had difficulty in sehool and performed poorly on standardized tests. Ledford was twice held back in elementary school and went forward because students could not be held back for two consecutive years. Dr. Zimmerman understood that Ledford tried very hard, but just could not quite catch on. These facts indicated to Dr. Zimmerman that Ledford suffers from adaptive deficits in the area of academic functioning. Dr. Zimmerman acknowledged that Ledford performed simple jobs for short periods of time. These jobs included tying carpet threads together, feeding lumber into a machine, and working at a gas station. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that Led-ford would not stay at these jobs for a long period of time because he did not