With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in August 1991. The defense hired investigators Jeff Galler and Dave Burns to investigate the work alibi defense. Documents (timecards and receipts) that would have established whether Over olding that the failure to investigate the alibi did not constitute ineffective assistance as there was no prejudice because the one alibi witness that was offered during the evidentiary hearing could not pinpoint the date of the conversation, so his testimony would have possessed “minimal value as alibi evidence”). Moreover, there was no prejudice from the failure to present the alibi defense because even if Overton’s counsel had established that Overton was working that night, sufficient time remained for him to commit the murders. At best, the work alibi was an incomplete alibi. Susan and (<HOLDING>). Overton further asserts that alternative

A: holding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for counsels failure to present the preindictment delay issue was without merit because there was no actual prejudice to the supposed alibi defense as the now unavailable witnesses would not have provided the defendant with an alibi for the time when the murder could have occurred
B: holding that an attorneys performance was deficient because he failed to investigate and reasonably select the   defense used at trial
C: holding that there was not deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi defense claim because the available testimony provided at best an incomplete alibi as the testimony still allowed for a two to threehour window for the defendant to commit the murder
D: holding counsels failure to investigate alibi witness and eyewitnesses to the crime amounted to constitutionally deficient performance
C.