Affirmed by published opinion. Judge LUTTIG wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINSON joined. Judge TRAXLER wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.
OPINION
LUTTIG, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Patrick Lane Moody was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a North Carolina state court. In a state post-conviction proceeding, Moody alleged, inter alia, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing. The state court denied relief to Moody, and the district court dismissed Moody’s subsequent section 2254 petition. We granted a certificate of appealability to review Moody’s claim. Because we conclude that the state court’s decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), we affirm.
I.
Moody was indicted in January 1995 for the first degree murder of Donnie Ray Robbins. J.A. 35. He initially entered a plea of not guilty. On July 14, 1995, during the state’s presentation of evidence at his trial, Moody changed his plea to guilty. The state’s evidence tended to show the following:
In July 1994, defendant started having an affair with Wanda Robbins (Wanda), the wife of the victim, Donnie Robbins. Over the course of their affair, defendant and Wanda discussed various plans to murder Wanda’s husband and share the insurance proceeds. On 16 September 1994, defendant went to Loman’s Trailer Park in Thomasville, North Carolina, to the home of Donnie and Wanda Robbins. Defendant identified himself as Darryl Thompson and pretended to be interested in buying Donnie’s old Chevrolet automobile. He and Donnie went to a field near the trailer park where the automobile was located. Defendant asked Donnie to measure the automobile, purportedly to determine whether it would fit on a “roll-back” truck. As Donnie leaned over the hood of the automobile to measure it, defendant shot him in the back of the head with a .32 caliber semiautomatic pistol he had stolen the previous day from a house near the trailer park.
State v. Moody, 345 N.C. 563, 481 S.E.2d 629, 631-32 (1997).
During the sentencing hearing, the state presented evidence that Wanda Robbins had sought to complete the paperwork necessary to receive insurance benefits for her husband’s death early the morning after the murder, supporting the inference that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain. Moody, 481 S.E.2d at 632. The state also introduced evidence that Moody had been previously convicted in Florida of attempted first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Id.
In mitigation, Moody’s counsel presented testimony from Steve Ervin, an ordained minister with a religious group called “His Laboring Few Biker’s Ministry.” Id. at 632. Ervin testified that Moody had been involved with the group in the time preceding the murder, but that [145]*145his involvement diminished after he met Wanda. Id.
In addition, defendant’s mother and half-brother testified as to-Moody’s “traumatic and abusive childhood.” Id. Carl Jacobs, Moody’s half-brother, testified that Moody’s father abused Moody when he was a young child, beating him with a board, breaking plates over his head, and locking him in his room without meals for up to eighteen hours. S.J.A. 462-65. Jacobs also testified that when Moody was 17, he temporarily moved in with Jacobs to avoid the abuse. S.J.A. 466. Janice Wan-del Moody (“Jardee”), Moody’s mother, testified that Moody’s father punished Moody in order to hurt Janice, and that Moody told her that he was abused by his father. S.J.A. 486. Jacobs did not see Moody at all between the time that Moody was 4 or 5 years old and when Moody moved in with him at age 17; Janice saw Moody infrequently over that time period. S.J.A. 468-69, 485, 493.
Defense counsel also offered the testimony of Dr. Jerry Wayne Noble, a clinical psychologist. S.J.A. 313-14. Dr. Noble testified that Moody had told him that he had suffered physical abuse as a child. Dr. Noble also testified that a neighbor had contacted Social Services when Moody was a child to report that Moody was abused. S.J.A. 331. Dr. Noble diagnosed Moody as suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, borderline intellectual functioning (with I.Q. scores ranging from 74 to 82), alcohol dependence, a mixed personality disorder, child abuse syndrome, and physical problems resulting from psychological difficulties. S.J.A. 351-58.
Moody also testified on his own behalf at sentencing. He admitted killing the victim but denied that he did it for insurance money. He testified that he killed Donnie Robbins because Wanda Robbins threatened to turn him in to the police on outstanding Florida warrants if he did not commit the murder. S.J.A. 535.
The jury unanimously found two aggravating factors: that Moody “has been previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person” and that “the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.” J.A. 379. One or more jurors considered the following factors to be present and mitigating: the murder “was committed while the defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance”; “the defendant acted under the domination of another person”; “the defendant aided in the apprehension of another capital felon”; “Moody was physically and verbally abused by his father during his formative years”; “Moody suffered during his childhood and adolescent years as a result of the lack of love and nurturing from his father and step-mother”; and “Moody was deceived by Wanda Robbins ... to believe that she ... was being physically abused by Donnie Ray Robbins.” J.A. 379.
The jury recommended and the trial court imposed the death penalty. Moody, 481 S.E.2d at 631. Moody’s conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal. Id.
In his state post-conviction proceedings, Moody alleged, inter alia, that his trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective for failing to perform an adequate mitigation investigation, failing to adequately prepare Dr. Noble for his testimony, and failing to introduce evidence pertaining to the aggravating factor of Moody’s prior conviction for attempted murder. The state MAR court denied relief, J.A. 35-119, as did the district court. J.A. 335-467. We issued a certificate of appealability to review Moody’s claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing.
[146]*146II.
Because the North Carolina state court rejected Moody’s claim on the merits, our review is constrained by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AED-PA). Moody seeks relief exclusively under section 2254(d)(1), which permits us to grant the writ of habeas corpus only if the state court adjudication 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
A decision is “contrary to” Supreme Court precedent if “the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases.” Terry Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Here, the state court correctly identified Strickland as the case governing claims that counsel has rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, and correctly recognized that, in order to satisfy the performance prong of Strickland, Moody must demonstrate “that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” J.A. 79 (quoting State v. Morganherring, 350 N.C. 701, 517 S.E.2d 622, 633 (1999)).
However, the state court also required that Moody demonstrate prejudice under Strickland by proving “that his counsel’s deficient representation was so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial.” J.A. 79 (quoting Morganherring, 517 S.E.2d at 633). The state court cited this court for the proposition that “we cannot grant relief solely because the outcome would have been different absent counsel’s deficient performance. Instead, we can only grant relief under the second prong of Strickland if the ‘result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’ ” J.A. 46 (quoting Sexton v. French, 163 F.3d 874, 882-84 (4th Cir.l998))(inter-nal citations omitted)(emphasis in state court opinion). The Supreme Court, however, has rejected the requirement that a petitioner prove that counsel’s deficient performance rendered the proceeding “fundamentally unfair,” because Strickland requires only a showing that, but for the unreasonable performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Terry Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495. See also Tucker v. Catoe, 221 F.3d 600, 608 (4th Cir.2000) (recognizing that the Supreme Court has “dismissed the idea that we must separately inquire into fundamental fairness even if a petitioner is able to show that his lawyer was ineffective and that the ineffectiveness probably affected the outcome of the proceeding”). The state court’s analysis of the prejudice prong was therefore contrary to Strickland, though its analysis of the performance prong was not “contrary to” Strickland.1
[147]*147Ordinarily, when a state court decision is “contrary to” governing Supreme Court law, we engage in de novo review of the prisoner’s claim. Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 689-90 (4th Cir.2001). Here, however, the state court provided two alternative, independently sufficient grounds for its holding — only one of which relied on a rule of law “contrary to” Supreme Court case law. An error in a state court’s analysis does not render the state court’s decision contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent when that analysis is not necessary to the state court’s resolution of the claim. Rather, because the state court’s holding on the issue of performance would alone suffice to defeat Moody’s ineffective assistance claim, the decision of the state court would only be contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland if the state court’s evaluation of both prongs were deficient under this standard. Therefore, we review the state court’s decision of the performance prong of the Strickland inquiry under the deferential AEDPA standard. Because the state court applied the wrong standard to evaluate prejudice, we do not defer to its analysis of that prong but instead review it de novo. See Syriani v. Polk, No. 04-12, 118 Fed.Appx. 706, 713-14 (4th Cir. Dec. 21, 2004)(unpublished).2
III.
Moody claims that his counsel were ineffective because they failed to perform an adequate investigation into mitigation, because they did not adequately prepare Dr. Noble for his mitigation testimony, and because they unreasonably failed to present evidence to undermine the state’s case in aggravation. As to each of these claims, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the state did not unreasonably apply Strickland when it found counsel’s performance to be reasonable. And, reviewing each claim de novo on the issue of prejudice, we conclude that, to the extent [148]*148that any of the challenged actions were unreasonable, they nevertheless did not prejudice Moody.
A.
1.
Moody first alleges that counsel’s overall mitigation investigation was insufficient. Under Strickland, “counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Any particular decision not to investigate must thus “be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” Id. In particular, Moody claims that counsel’s meetings with him were unreasonably infrequent during their investigation into mitigation and that counsel unreasonably failed to investigate family history sufficiently because they did not immediately contact Moody’s half-brother, Fred Mayle, upon receiving his contact information.
We disagree with Moody’s contention that counsel’s investigation was unreasonable. Counsel Charles Harp was appointed on January 30, 1995, and counsel Jon Myers was appointed on February 13, 1995. J.A. 274, 282. Prior to the commencement of Moody’s trial on July 10, 1995, Harp met with Moody on two occasions, March 29 and July 9. J.A. 274. Myers met with Moody on June 14, July 4, and July 9. J.A. 282. Counsel filed affidavits on post-conviction review asserting that the first time either of them asked Moody about his family history was during the June 14 meeting, where “defendant withheld information from his trial counsel about his family members and expressed a desire not to have his family members either advised about his trial or involved in his trial.” J.A. 97. During the July 4 meeting, apparently in response to further questioning about his family history, Moody “falsely reported] that his father had been killed in a car accident,” J.A. 97-98, but also provided Myers with contact information for his half-brother, Fred Mayle. J.A. 283. Myers did not attempt to contact Mayle until July 15, after Moody’s trial had begun and after Moody had changed his plea, and two days before the beginning of the sentencing trial. Mayle informed trial counsel that Moody’s parents were alive and lived in Ohio. Trial counsel contacted Moody’s family members the following day and were able to convince Moody’s mother and half-brother to testify on his behalf. J.A. 283.
As to Moody’s claim that his counsel did not meet with him frequently enough, there is no established “minimum number of meetings between counsel and client prior to trial necessary to prepare an attorney to provide effective assistance of counsel.” United States v. Olson, 846 F.2d 1103, 1108 (7th Cir.1988). If Moody had told the truth at the meetings he had with counsel, counsel could have pursued the leads he gave them and acquired all available mitigating evidence. Because of Moody’s dishonesty to his, own counsel, however, counsel were limited in their possibilities for mitigation investigation.3 The Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]he reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or ac[149]*149tions.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. And “when a defendant has given counsel reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or even harmful, counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable.”4 Id. Given that Moody was unwilling to give his counsel any productive leads at the June 14 meeting, and that counsel knew that he was lying to them and that he was “a poor and unreliable historian,” J.A. 282-83, counsel could reasonably have determined that further meetings with Moody were not helpful in preparing his defense. See J.A. 97-98.
Counsel’s limited meetings with Moody were also sufficient in light of the other evidence they gathered from him. Dr. Noble testified that he spent approximately 60-70 hours evaluating Moody, including approximately 12 hours spent interviewing and testing Moody. J.A. 396. The state court could thus reasonably conclude that counsel made a reasonable decision to allocate their own time to other means of investigation, based on a belief that Dr. Noble would be more qualified to obtain relevant evidence from Moody and to provide that evidence to counsel. See J.A. 97-98.
Moody also argues that, as part of an investigation into family history, counsel should have called his half-brother Fred Mayle immediately upon becoming aware, on July 4, that he existed and lived in Florida, which in turn would have given counsel more time to contact the family members who Mayle identified. Because counsel did ultimately contact Mayle on July 15, we do not have to find that it would have been reasonable not to contact him at all, but only that the state court could reasonably have concluded that the failure to contact him immediately was a reasonable decision. Myers’ notes reflect that Moody told him that Mayle “was around [Moody] until age 4-5 and didn’t see him again until age 18.” J.A. 290. Myers thus could have assumed that Mayle would have limited evidence to provide about Moody’s family background during most of his formative years. Additionally, counsel could have suspected that Mayle would be unlikely to identify other family members who could be helpful in mitigation, as counsel had been told by Moody that Moody’s father was deceased and that he did not want his family to know of his trial.
These representations by Moody would not cause reasonable counsel to prioritize contacting Mayle. Likewise, counsel had acquired extensive evidence of Moody’s family background from Dr. Noble, who had interviewed Moody, examined his [150]*150school records, reviewed reports concerning child abuse, reviewed medical and psychiatric treatment records, and interviewed witnesses. S.J.A. 316. The state court’s conclusion that counsel performed a reasonable investigation into family history was thus a reasonable application of Strickland. See J.A. 105.
2.
Moody next argues that his counsel’s presentation of mitigating evidence was unreasonable, because counsel permitted Dr. Noble to testify on the basis of an outline of his examination of Moody that included areas where he had substantial doubts about the veracity of information provided to him by Moody and reflected Dr. Noble’s doubts about those areas with question marks. Br. of Appellant at 32-33. He alleges that because Harp admits that he knew that Dr. Noble was basing his expert opinions largely on incorrect or unverified information, Harp was ineffective for not attempting to correct this problem, either by requesting a continuance from the trial court or by seeking further information. Id. at 34. When the outline was made available to the prosecution, Moody claims that the prosecution used it to fatally attack Dr. Noble’s credibility.
We disagree. Dr. Noble’s incomplete or inaccurate information was not a result of a limited investigation, but a direct result of Moody’s dishonesty. Moody cannot lie to his expert psychologist and then claim ineffective assistance because his attorneys did not seek evidence to disprove his lies so that they could be removed from the expert’s outline. See Thomas v. Taylor, 170 F.3d 466, 471 (4th Cir.1999) (“In view of appellant’s repeated assertions that he firéd both shots, trial counsel was under no obligation to investigate further the possibility that appellant did not fire the second shot,” even though appellant told his court-appointed expert that he did not fire the second shot). To the extent that Dr. Noble’s credibility was undermined because of inaccuracies in his testimony, Moody, not counsel, is responsible for that consequence.
Moody appears to allege two possible courses of action counsel could have taken to render reasonable performance with respect to Dr. Noble’s testimony: counsel could have ensured that the outline had all information of questionable veracity removed from it or counsel could have requested a continuance to allow Dr. Noble more time to confirm the information he had gathered.
That the content of the outline itself was not consistent with Moody’s present wishes is no fault of trial counsel. Dr. Noble, not trial counsel, had ultimate responsibility for his own expert report. And Dr. Noble informed trial counsel when he faxed them the outline that “I will be doing my own last revisions and additions later this morning.” J.A. 294. Counsel bears no responsibility for Dr. Noble’s failure to finalize his outline in a form that did not include information about which he had doubts.5 To the extent that Moody raises a claim that Dr. Noble was ineffective, we reject that claim because we have consistently “ ‘rejected the notion that there is either a procedural or constitutional rule of ineffective assistance of an expert witness, rather than ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” Wilson v. Greene, 155 F.3d 396, 401 (4th Cir.1998); see also Thomas, 170 F.3d at 472.
[151]*151Nor was it unreasonable performance for trial counsel to fail to seek a continuance upon discovering that Dr. Noble was uncertain about the veracity of some of the information he had gathered. Counsel were entitled to rely on Dr. Noble’s representation that he would complete a final version of the outline; absent any indication from Dr. Noble that he needed more time, counsel had no reason to request such time. Nor is Moody able to demonstrate that the state court would have been likely to grant a continuance in the circumstance where the defendant’s own dishonesty and the psychologist’s inexplicable failure to finalize his outline gave rise to the need for delay; indeed, the state MAR court concluded that the trial court would likely not have continued the case. J.A. 99-100. Without evidence that reasonable counsel would have believed a continuance stood a realistic chance of being granted, Moody cannot demonstrate that reasonable counsel would necessarily have requested a continuance. See Murray v. Maggio, 736 F.2d 279, 283 (5th Cir.1984) (“Counsel is not required to engage in the filing of futile motions.”).
Moody also appears to allege that, if counsel appropriately proceeded with the outline in its incomplete form, they nonetheless erred by eliciting from Dr. Noble information about his uncertainties and Moody’s dishonesty. But counsel could reasonably have concluded that such information would be far less harmful if introduced by them than it would be if the prosecution first highlighted Moody’s dishonesty.
The state court’s rejection of Moody’s attacks on counsel’s actions surrounding Dr. Noble’s testimony was thus reasonable.
3.
Finally, Moody alleges that counsel were ineffective in their failure to introduce evidence to undermine the state’s case in aggravation. The state presented evidence that Moody had been convicted in Florida of attempted first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Moody, 481 S.E.2d at 632; S.J.A. 277-79. In the Florida case, Moody had apparently been hired by Maria Rickard to kill Sheilagh Rickard. J.A. 280-81. She-ilagh sent a letter to the Florida court arguably requesting leniency for Moody, whom she viewed as less culpable than Maria. Id. Moody now alleges that his trial counsel should have introduced She-ilagh’s letter or testimony by Sheilagh herself to mitigate the impact of Moody’s conviction.6
Because Sheilagh’s letter is “a double-edged sword that might as easily have condemned [Moody] to death as excused his actions,” Byram v. Ozmint, 339 F.3d 203, 210 (4th Cir.2003), we disagree with this contention as well. Moody focuses on particular language from the letter, such as where Sheilagh states that she “do[es] not feel that [Moody] is as guilty as Maria Rickard.... [Rickard] did not change her mind and let me live, that was Patrick Moody’s decision.” J.A. 280. However, the letter also reveals the extensive emotional impact that Moody’s crime had on Sheilagh, who told the court that [152]*152“[t]hese past eight months have been harrowing enough for me and I am so afraid that when I am in Court that I will once again be overcome with emotion as I was at the sentencing of Patrick Moody.” Id. Sheilagh also made statements that could lead a jury to conclude that Moody was fully to blame for the earlier crime; she notes, for example, that “I cannot in my mind make him more guilty than Maria, even though he was with Maña and Gerald when they bought the gun ... for what was to be the second attempt on my life.” Id. at 281 (emphasis ‘ added). Given the potential that this letter would only have highlighted the amount of damage that Moody had done to Sheilagh and the fact that Moody had not “changed his mind” with respect to killing Robbins, it is impossible to say that counsel were unreasonable not to submit the letter to the jury.
Moody also implies that Harp should have taken steps to secure Sheilagh’s testimony at Moody’s trial after she abandoned her initial agreement to testify. See J.A. 101-02. But it is clear that offering She-ilagh’s testimony would have presented the same risks as offering the letter. Because Sheilagh might well have changed her view of Moody upon discovering that he did follow through with a murder, her testimony would have been even more risky than the presentation of the letter. The state court was certainly not unreasonable to conclude that forcing Sheilagh, who had become very emotional at Moody’s first trial, to testify in the present case could have harmed rather than helped Moody, and thus that it was not unreasonable to fail to do so.
Because Moody has failed to demonstrate that the state court’s conclusion that his counsel rendered reasonable performance was an unreasonable application of Strickland, he is not entitled to relief.
B.
Even if Moody could establish that his counsel performed unreasonably, he is not entitled to relief because he has failed to demonstrate the prejudice required by Strickland. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. As noted above, we review the state court’s resolution of this claim de novo.
Moody alleges that, had each of the errors he claims been remedied, the jury would have viewed the aggravating circumstance of his prior conviction as less damaging, would have valued Dr. Noble’s testimony in mitigation to a greater extent, and would have been able to receive more evidence to confirm that Moody was abused as a child. Moody thus claims that when “we reweigh the evidence in aggravation against the totality of available mitigating evidence,” we must conclude that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003).
We disagree. We do not believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury’s verdict would have been different absent counsel’s purportedly unreasonable performance. As to aggravation, the Rick-ard letter, as we noted above, was double-edged, and it is unclear that it would have benefitted Moody in the eyes of the jury. Indeed, by emphasizing the tremendous damage Moody had inflicted on another victim and the degree of his participation in an earlier, very similar contract killing conspiracy, the letter would most likely have increased Moody’s chances of receiving the death penalty.
As to evidence in mitigation, Moody alleges that Dr. Noble’s use of an outline with inaccurate or incomplete information, [153]*153marked by question marks, resulted in a cross-examination that discredited Dr. Noble in the eyes of the jury. In support of this allegation, Moody notes that the jury rejected several mitigating factors to which Dr. Noble testified.7 Each of the mitigating factors highlighted by Moody, however, is a non-statutory mitigating factor; the jury thus was free to conclude that the factor was present but reject the contention that it had mitigating value. See S.J.A. 747. The jury may well have credited Dr. Noble’s testimony but simply refused to find the facts he alleged mitigating in light of the horrendous nature of the crime. The fact that some jurors did find several mitigating factors supported by Dr. Noble’s testimony tends to indicate that those jurors did credit Dr. Noble’s testimony, at least in part.8
Even if the jurors did not credit Dr. Noble’s testimony, there is no reasonable probability that they would have credited his testimony if he had been more extensively prepared by counsel. During both direct and cross examination, Dr. Noble gave substantial reason for the jury to doubt his testimony. First, he admitted that much of the evidence on which he relied was of questionable veracity; he conceded that, as a result of the physical abuse he suffered, Moody “certainly learned to lie and manipulate in certain situations” and that he “was not able to verify” Moody’s representations regarding his father’s death in a car accident. S.J.A. 338, 394.
Moreover, the prosecution, through cross-examination, posed numerous questions that potentially discredited Dr. Noble, very few of which had any connection to Dr. Noble’s challenged outline or the completeness of his investigation. The prosecution discredited Dr. Noble on the grounds that he had limited qualifications, S.J.A. 374, that he had limited knowledge of the available facts because he was not present for the preceding portion of the sentencing hearing, S.J.A. 375, 388, that he had only ever testified in favor of the defense in capital cases, S.J.A. 378-79, and that he had “often testified that there are mitigating factors that might be considered.” S. J.A. 379. Even if Moody’s counsel had directed Dr. Noble to remove all information from his outline that was of questionable veracity, or sought a continuance to verify the truth of all representations made by Dr. Noble, all of these grounds for discrediting Dr. Noble would still have been present.
There is thus no reasonable probability that the jury would have attributed any additional value to the mitigating circumstances supported by Dr. Noble’s testimony, had no gaps or uncertainties existed in that testimony.
Finally, Moody argues that, had his trial counsel presented more evidence concerning his family history — primarily his abuse as a child — the jury would have assigned more mitigating weight to that history. [154]*154The evidence of childhood abuse that Moody alleges should have been added is largely cumulative of what appeared in the record. Dr. Noble testified extensively of Moody’s childhood abuse. S.J.A. 331-33, 336, 373.- As part of his testimony, Dr. Noble noted confirmation of Moody’s accusations from other sources, S.J.A. 332 (noting that Moody complained to his school at the time the abuse allegedly took place); S.J.A. 336 (noting that Steve, Moody’s “half brother or step brother,” alleged that Steve was brutally abused and described Moody as “his father’s scapegoat”); S.J.A. 331 (noting that a neighbor in Ohio complained to Social Services reporting that Moody “was bruised and that he had been locked in his room”). Carl Jacobs and Janice Moody also testified that Moody was abused by his father. S.J.A. 461-64; S.J.A. 476, 486-87. Although neither saw .Moody regularly after he was five years old, Janice did see him from time to time, and testified that his father treated him very badly. S.J.A. 487.
The affidavits presented by Moody in support of his habeas petition provide confirmation for this testimony of abuse. See J.A. 120-70. However, prejudice does not exist simply because more corroborating evidence could have been presented. The jury was presented with substantial and uncontradicted evidence that Moody was abused by his father. Given that the prosecutor did not present any evidence to contradict the evidence of abuse, there is simply no reasonable probability that the jurors doubted the existence of abuse and would have come to a different verdict had they been presented further evidence that abuse in fact occurred.
To the extent that the affidavits presented to the habeas court provide new evidence, they are, like Sheilagh’s letter, double-edged. The affidavits would have informed the jury that Moody often had problems making friends as a child, which could possibly be mitigating. However, the affidavit of Moody’s father also provided evidence that abuse did not occur, denying that he was ever “neglectful or abusive” to Moody. J.A. 121. Vince Shillig, who was the assistant principal of Moody’s high school, stated that Moody “had a violent temper” and that Shillig “remember[ed] Patrick very well and fondly even though he was frequently in my office for violations of school rules, including two incidents when he brought a dangerous weapon to school.” J.A. 166. Because the affidavits confirm that Moody has a history of violence and could have undermined the mitigating evidence of child abuse, they would have been as likely to harm Moody as to help him.
Because the additional evidence Moody alleges his counsel should have presented would have been unlikely to weaken the case in aggravation or strengthen the case in mitigation, there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have weighed aggravating and mitigating factors differently when presented with that additional evidence. Faced with Moody’s guilty plea, his earlier conviction for attempted murder, and the cold-blooded manner in which he murdered Robbins, we are confident that the jury would not have returned a different verdict even if counsel had performed exactly how Moody now argues they should have. Moody is thus not entitled to relief.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.