poly-drug substance abuse. Burstein, a psychiatrist, testified that Mickey was delusional at the time of the crime, plagued by a borderline personality disorder exacerbated by his use of multiple types of drugs. These experts provided substantial testimony before the penalty phase jury. Mickey, however, points to three deficiencies. First, he argues that counsel should have better coordinated the experts’ testimony. The experts, for example, differed as to whether Mickey needed to be intoxicated for a diagnosis of toxic psychosis. But surely counsel cannot be faulted for the fact that their experts gave inconsistent sworn testimony. We do not expect counsel to manipulate experts to get their stories straight, Mod. R. Prof. Cond surrebutt nsolicited, access to fact witnesses. Id. (<HOLDING>). Finally, Mickey claims that counsel should
holding that the defendant must provide facts to establish what the conflict was holding counsel must only provide relevant facts of the crime holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder holding counsel must bring relevant facts to attention of experts holding that only relevant factors must be considered