prior to the sexual assault; (4) Smallwood was a major participant in the crime; (5) Gallegos expressed remorse for his involvement soon after the crime; and (6) the detective believed Gallegos had told him the truth during his confession. Clark elicited from Gallegos testimony confirming Saldate’s accounts, as well as evidence that Gallegos was quite intoxicated on the day of the crime. Clark also moved twice, albeit unsuccessfully, for acquittal on the sexual conduct with a minor charge. Moreover, as we have explained, although Clark conceded that Gallegos should be convicted, he did not concede that his client was guilty of first-degree murder, and acknowledging that Gallegos was responsible for the death could reasonably have been a strategic maneuver. See Hovey, 458 F.3d at 907 (<HOLDING>); Thomas, 417 F.3d at 1058 (declining to
holding cronic not applicable where counsel conceded his clients guilt to protect his own credibility and avoid conviction on other charges holding that the attorney violated mlrpc 13 when he did not prosecute his clients claim after filing a complaint or protect against expiration of the statute of limitation for his clients complaint and caused discovery sanctions to be filed for his failure to respond to discovery requests holding that the cronic presumption should apply where counsel was absent for two days during which the probability of his guilt increased during the governments presentation of evidence against his coconspirators holding that disbarment was proper where the attorney misappropriated payments from clients of his firm for his own use and took steps to conceal his conduct from his firm holding that trial counsels concession of defendants guilt to one of several charges in order to enhance his credibility in arguing against conviction on other charges is a reasonable trial strategy and not susceptible to cronics presumed prejudice analysis