asked why he did not inquire into potential jurors’ reaction to the pretrial publicity, counsel stated that because four years had passed since the publicity, he was hoping the jurors had forgotten about it, and he did not “want to go back and wake anybody up.” He also explained that he did not inquire about jurors’ attitudes toward a defendant’s failure to testify because he was concerned that Hovey might change his decision. He also felt that he could address any juror concerns through jury instructions later in the trial. As in Gustave, counsel’s “decision whether to request certain voir dire questions was a strategic decision of the attorney and his failure to do so ... is not ineffective representation.” 627 F.2d at 906; see also Wilson v. Henry, 185 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 5. Exclusion of Experts The district court
holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel relied on jurors statements that they would be fair and follow the law without asking about their views on criminal history