Corbett

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Eugene Harris Corbett appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258. We REVERSE and REMAND for the appointment of a psychiatric expert to examine Corbett.

Corbett contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer, Francis Akamine, failed to discover until the eve of trial information that would have supported the mitigating defense of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (“EMED”). Specifically, Aka-mine discovered that Corbett’s altercation with the victim occurred shortly after Corbett, who has a history of brain trauma and childhood abuse, had learned that the victim had sexually assaulted Corbett’s ex-girlfriend. As a result of Akamine’s failure to discover this information earlier, he did not present expert testimony in support of the EMED defense. A successful EMED defense would have reduced Corbett’s offense from second degree murder to manslaughter.

The parties do not dispute that counsel’s conduct fell outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance required by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052…