of Kendall’s Wi-shon’s life.” ■ • As a factual matter, although Clark never articulated for the jury a coherent basis for a lesser verdict, he did not concede that Gallegos was guilty of first-degree murder. Rather, in his opening statement he reminded the jury of the State!s burden, ‘arguing that Gallegos “is presumed to be innocent. He is innocent.” In his closing argument, Clark “submitted] to [the jury] that all of the facts- that [they had] heard certainly show that” Gallegos was guilty of “reckless manslaughter.” His admission, therefore, was only that Gallegos was guilty of some offense involving Kendall’s death; it was not a cqncession of a lack of reasonable doubt on all factual issues or of guilt of a.capital offense. See Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 906 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). As a strategic matter, disputing Gallegos’s
holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights holding counsel did not concede preineditation when he stated that there could be findings  of willful deliberate and premeditated because he made this point in the context of weighing the jurys options holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that the petitioner in that case could not invoke the protections provided by miranda  including the right to counsel because he was not in custody at the time he stated t think i need a lawyer  holding that admission of oral statements voluntarily made by accused after he had stated that he would not make a written statement without advice of counsel did not violate edwards