With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was unlikely to strongly influence the jury. Mickey next argues that counsel were deficient in the communication of medical-related information and the facts of the crime to the experts Burstein and Smith. This, too, is unavailing. With respect to Burstein, Mickey claims that counsel were deficient in providing a garbled tape of the Hawaii interview with police. But, Burstein notably does not claim he ever requested a better version or a transcript. Mickey also claims that counsel should have provided access to the testimony of the accomplice Rogers and Mickey’s ex-wife Rochelle for corroboration of Mickey’s history of drug use. But Mickey’s drug use was not in dispute. Conveying such additional information was therefore unnecessary. Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 925-26 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). We decline to rule that counsel must provide,

A: holding counsel must bring relevant facts to attention of experts
B: holding that only relevant factors must be considered
C: holding that defense counsel may call attention to the states failure to produce evidence
D: holding counsel must only provide relevant facts of the crime
A.