With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in a different room than Hanson and, according to Mickey’s own experts, was not a part of Mickey’s delusional scheme. Finally, this mental health defense conflicted with Mickey’s own statements. Mickey claimed self-defense during interviews in which the police described him as alert and cognitively stable. But if he was in a delusional state at the time of the murders, how could he be defending himself? Counsel were not deficient in deciding not to portray his client as a flip-flopper. See Turk, 116 F.3d at 1266-67. Second, a mental health defense was likely to open the door to evidence of Mickey’s deviant sexual behaviors. Belmontes, 130 S.Ct. at 385-86 (commenting on superior performance of counsel in excluding damaging evidence while presenting a defense); Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1037 (<HOLDING>). The experts who would have testified to

A: holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel
B: holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes
C: holding counsel acted reasonably when not exposing the jury to the defendants other crimes
D: holding the crimes merge where the jury was not asked to determine whether two assaults occurredeventhough the evidence may have been sufficient to support separate crimes
C.