of the defendant’s refusal to assert an insanity defense or that he was mentally ill at the time of the conduct in question”); Selman v. State, 267 Ga. 198, 200 (475 SE2d 892) (1996) (same); Reece v. State, 212 Ga. 609, 609-610 (94 SE2d 723) (1956) (“Weak-mindedness alone is no defense to crime. The evidence in the record that the defendant had the mentality of a child nine or ten years old does not relieve him from responsibility for crime.” (citation omitted)); McKethan v. State, 201 Ga. 23, 38 (39 SE2d 15) (1946) (“That the accused, though able to distinguish between right and wrong, might be unable to evaluate the quality and consequences of his act to the same degree as a normal or average individual, is no defense.”); Goosby v. State, 153 Ga. 496, hn. [1] (112 SE 467) (1922) (<HOLDING>); Rogers v. State, 128 Ga. 67, 68 (57 SE 227)
holding that the trial court did not err in prohibiting a witness from testifying that the defendant was weakminded because the answer would have been immaterial as weakness of mind would not have constituted a defense nor excused the crime holding that the prejudice prong in strickland was not satisfied because counsels failure to raise an evidentiary issue would not have altered the result of the proceedings because the erroneous admission of the evidence would have constituted harmless error holding that evidence of a threat to a witness by the defendant is relevant as showing an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying and avoid punishment for the crime holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury not to draw any adverse inferences from the governments failure to call a witness because the witness did not have a relationship with the government such that one would expect him to give testimony in favor of the government