In Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 156 L. Ed. 2d 471, 123 S. Ct. 2527 (2003), the United States Supreme Court revisited the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate. See Wiggins, 539 U.S. 510, 156 L. Ed. 2d 471, 123 S. Ct. 2527. The defense counsel in Wiggins had the presentence investigation (PSI) report and the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (DSS) reports which discussed, in a limited manner, the degree of abuse Wiggins suffered as a child. Counsel chose not to further investigate Wiggins' background and relied solely on the PSI and DSS reports. Postconviction counsel later uncovered the extent of abuse Wiggins suffered, which was far greater than what was discussed in either the PSI or the DSS reports. The Court found that trial counsel had abandoned their investigation of Wiggins' background after only a rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources. The Court also found that the scope of the investigation was unreasonable in light of the information contained in the reports and that "any reasonably competent attorney would have realized that pursuing these leads was necessary to making an informed choice among possible defenses." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 525. Thus, the Court concluded, "in assessing the reasonableness of an attorney's investigation ... a court must consider not only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel, but also whether the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further." Id. at 527. The Court further stated that "Strickland does not establish that a cursory investigation automatically justifies a tactical decision with respect to sentencing strategy. Rather, a reviewing court must consider the reasonableness of the investigation said to support that strategy." Id. The Supreme Court recently stated in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 156 L. Ed. 2d 471, 123 S. Ct. 2527 (2003): Our principal concern in deciding whether counsel exercised "reasonable professional judgment" is not whether counsel should have presented a mitigation case. Rather, we focus on whether the investigation supporting counsel's decision not to introduce mitigating evidence ... was itself reasonable. In assessing counsel's investigation, we must conduct an objective review of their performance, measured for "reasonableness under prevailing professional norms," which includes a context-dependent consideration of the challenged conduct as seems "from counsel's perspective at the time." Id. at 522-23.