With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in his cross-appeal, that the new evidence of subtle neurological impairments would not have significantly affected the jury’s deliberations during the guilt/innocence phase. Given the weakness of the new mental health evidence and the overwhelming evidence of the intentional and deliberate nature of Lance’s crimes, we conclude that it is essentially beyond possibility that the jury would have failed to convict Lance of the murders. We further conclude that it would have been highly unlikely that the new mental health evidence would have led the jury to render a verdict of guilty but mentally ill, which would not foreclose a death sentence in any event. See OCGA § 17-7-131 (a) (2) (defining “[mjentally ill”). See also Lewis v. State, 279 Ga. 756, 764 (12) (620 SE2d 778) (2005) (<HOLDING>). B. Evidence from Forensic Experts Lance

A: holding that a jury verdict of guilty constitutes a conviction for purposes of the federal firearms statute and therefore the defendant was convicted of a felony during the interval between the jurys return of its guilty verdict and his scheduled sentencing
B: holding that where the evidence offered by the state and admitted by the trial court  whether erroneously or not  would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict the double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial
C: holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict
D: holding that the statute that provides for a verdict of guilty but mentally ill does not preclude a death sentence as the result of such a verdict
D.