in a different room than Hanson and, according to Mickey’s own experts, was not a part of Mickey’s delusional scheme. Finally, this mental health defense conflicted with Mickey’s own statements. Mickey claimed self-defense during interviews in which the police described him as alert and cognitively stable. But if he was in a delusional state at the time of the murders, how could he be defending himself? Counsel were not deficient in deciding not to portray his client as a flip-flopper. See Turk, 116 F.3d at 1266-67. Second, a mental health defense was likely to open the door to evidence of Mickey’s deviant sexual behaviors. Belmontes, 130 S.Ct. at 385-86 (commenting on superior performance of counsel in excluding damaging evidence while presenting a defense); Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1037 (<HOLDING>). The experts who would have testified to
holding the crimes merge where the jury was not asked to determine whether two assaults occurredeventhough the evidence may have been sufficient to support separate crimes holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel holding counsel acted reasonably when not exposing the jury to the defendants other crimes holding evidence of other crimes inadmissible when identity is not at issue