This substance abuse, the report continued, “seems to have had an exacerbating effect on the grandiose and persecutory beliefs that Doug began to develop during the mid-1970s.” Thus, Mickey is simply incorrect that there was undiscovered evidence of pre-drug abuse psychiatric disturbance for counsel to investigate. The same is true of the new social history with respect to the purported abuse. It is black-letter law that counsel cannot be found deficient for believing what his client plausibly tells him: “when a defendant has given counsel reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or harmful, counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Cox, 588 F.3d at 1048-49 (<HOLDING>); Raley v. Ylst, 470 F.3d 792, 803 (9th
holding that defendants failure to obtain counsel despite opportunities to do so implied a waiver of counsel recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel holding that trial counsel will not be convicted of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to engage in futile acts holding counsel not responsible for defendants failure to mention abuse