With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". must make a significant effort, based on reasonable investigation and logical argument, to ably present the defendant’s fate to the jury and to focus the attention of the jury on any mitigating factors. Mitigating factors brought out at trial might be emphasized, a coherent plea for mercy might be given, or new evidence in mitigation might be presented. But counsel may not treat the sentencing phase as nothing more than a mere postscript to the trial. While the Strickland threshold of professional competence is admittedly low, the defendant’s life hangs in the balance at a capital sentencing hearing. Indeed, in some cases, this may be the stage of the proceedings where counsel can do his or her client the most good. Kubat v. Thieret, 867 F.2d 351, 369 (7th Cir.1989) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). What does the general statement about

A: holding trial counsels failure to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel
B: holding that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes cause for procedural default only if counsels performance was constitutionally ineffective
C: holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failure to present cumulative evidence
D: holding counsels performance was ineffective where counsel failed to present any evidence in mitigation and offered a rambling and incoherent argument that cannot even charitably be called a plea for mercy
D.