With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decision to forego a mental health defense because it was not entirely persuasive, was subject to serious cross-examination, and would expose the jury to the defendant’s other crimes. 70 F.3d at 1037. The Supreme Court recently affirmed this type of reasoning in Wong v. Belmontes, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 383, — L.Ed.2d - (2009), where it strongly suggested that counsel’s decision to forego a defense because it would prompt the introduction of damaging evidence was not deficient. Id. at 385-86. Here, there were numerous reasons justifying counsel’s decision not to present a mental health defense and instead to rely on reasonable doubt and argue a self-defense theory. First, a mental health defense was unlikely to persuade a jury. Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 610-11 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). A mental health defense would have presented

A: holding that counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to pursue a particular mitigating factor where despite a reasonable investigation by counsel counsel was not put on notice of any such mitigating evidence
B: holding counsel need not put on an unpersuasive defense
C: holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity
D: holding that defendants answer sufficiently encapsulated the elements of an affirmative defense to have put plaintiff on notice that defendant intended to rely on it
B.