and no affirmative defenses or lesser-included offenses. While true, Thomas’s counsel nevertheless faced problems similar to Nixon’s. There was overwhelming evidence that Thomas participated in the UPS robbery — he was, in effect, caught red-handed — and counsel, defending Thomas against not one but six charges, saw a need to concentrate the defense on those counts that carried the stiffest penalties. Thomas also relies on our opinion in United States v. Swanson, 943 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.1991), which was a bank robbery case in which counsel argued that the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and that he was not going to insult the jurors’ intelligence by trying to raise a r d, 290 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Holman, 314 F.3d 837, 839 n. 1, 840-41 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). As the district court found, this is such a
holding that trial counsels concession of defendants guilt to one of several charges in order to enhance his credibility in arguing against conviction on other charges is a reasonable trial strategy and not susceptible to cronics presumed prejudice analysis holding that if delay in the prosecution of disciplinary charges substantially impaired the attorneys ability to defend against the charges  the constitution might compel a different analysis a delay coupled with actual prejudice could result in a due process violation  holding cronic not applicable where counsel conceded his clients guilt to protect his own credibility and avoid conviction on other charges holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy holding that trial counsels failure to call defendants family members as witnesses during penalty phase was reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel