select a defense when counsel fails to investigate the best defense. E.g., Phillips, 267 F.3d at 980. But counsel may fail to investigate a particular defense and still, luckily, present the b re “abundant signs” of mental illness, Seidel v. Merkle, 146 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir.1998), or rest on a “preliminary examination,” Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181, 1203-04 (9th Cir.2005). At the same time, of course, counsel need not investigate interminably. Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.1995). Here, Mickey’s counsel conducted a significant investigation int gation, they are justified by a “reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see Wood v. Allen, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 841, 850-51, — L.Ed.2d-(2010) (<HOLDING>). Turk v. White, 116 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir.1997),
holding that counsels performance was deficient for failing to investigate readily available evidence of mental impairment recognizing the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions and that strategic choices made after less than complete investigation may be reasonable if reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation holding that state courts factual finding that counsel made a strategic decision not to investigate further a mental illness that if reasonable would make counsels investigation not deficient was reasonable under aedpa review holding counsels strategic decision not to present a voluntary intoxication defense did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel determined the murder was not committed while floyd was under the influence of cocaine holding that counsel was not deficient for failing to make an objection that lacked merit