has a Sixth Amendment right to have a trial court disregard the defendant’s election and accept the contrary decision of counsel. Available constitutional doctrines do not compel the grant of the writ on that basis. What little caselaw there is on this subject militates against the recognition of that right. The decision to assert an affirmative defense is akin to other, fundamental trial decisions, such as the decision to plead to a lesser charge or to assert a plea of insanity. See Jones, 463 U.S. at 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308 (“the accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.”); United States v. Marble, 940 F.2d 1543, 1547-48 (D.C.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). If that analogy is sound, a court must accept
holding that due process requires that a defendant entering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity understand that if the plea is accepted he could be committed to a state hospital for the criminally insane for a term up to the maximum possible penalty for the offense charged holding that defendant has the right to refuse a plea of insanity holding that if plea bargain has been offered defendant has right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to accept it holding that a defendant who sought to receive the death penalty had the right to refuse to present mitigation evidence holding a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel during a plea process