Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for a mistrial. See Van Alstine v. State, 263 Ga. 1, 2-3 (426 SE2d 360) (1993) (noting that the decision over “what trial motions should be made[ ] and all other strategic and tactical decisions are the exclusive province of the lawyer after consultation with his client”) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied). Nevertheless, the ultimate decision over whether to move for a mistrial is a strategic one made by the lawyer, not the client. See id.; Fortson v. State, 240 Ga. 5 (1) (239 SE2d 335) (1977); Berry v. State, 262 Ga. App. 375, 377 (2) (c) (585 SE2d 679) (2003) (noting that “counsel’s decision whether to move for a mistrial generally falls within the ambit of trial strategy”) (footnote omitted). See also United States v. Burke, 257 F3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). And, the fact that defense counsel and his 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the decision whether to seek a mistrial is a tactical decision entrusted to defense counsel binding the defendant even when the defendant expressed a contrary wish to his lawyer (B) holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision (C) holding that there is an inference from the existence of a blank for the name of defendants lawyer and from the absence of any evidence to the contrary that defendant was not represented by counsel (D) holding that defense counsel gathered sufficient evidence to make a reasonable tactical decision not to conduct further investigations into his clients mental health when psychiatric experts interviewed the defendant for more than twenty hours and informed defense counsel that they could not find any basis for a mental defense (E) holding that defense counsels decision not to call defendant to the stand despite defendants repeatedly expressed desire to testify on his own behalf was not ineffective assistance of counsel but was a reasonable tactical decision by counsel not to subject defendant to all of the risk attendant on crossexamination
Output (English): holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision