With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Kentucky Supreme Court quickly rejected this claim on direct appeal, stating that “[t]he trial judge determined that the trial strategy used by Bowling’s counsel had a better chance of success than any of which the trial judge could think in light of the strong evidence of guilt presented by the prosecution.” Bowling I, 873 S.W.2d at 180. This claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. First, it is not clear that Bowling has shown constitutional deficiency. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the focus of the Sixth Amendment is not on “the accused’s relationship with his lawyer,” but on “the adversarial process.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988) (quotation omitted); see also Dick v. Scroggy, 882 F.2d 192, 197 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Yet, the one-hour total consultation time

A: holding duration of stop was reasonable as it lasted under thirty minutes
B: holding in a noncapital case that strickland was not violated when the defendants attorney did not interview the defendant until the night before trial and then for only thirty to fortyfive minutes
C: holding that strickland was violated when the defendants counsel among many other deficiencies met with his client in a capital case for less than two hours
D: holding that an order granting the media the right to interview a defendant in a capital murder case was unreviewable upon appeal in the criminal trial and therefore immediately appealable as a collateral order because the review on appeal would have been too late to cure any damage to the defendant from what was said in the interview
B.