Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Both professionals advised Grisez that there was no basis for an insanity or diminished capacity defense. Under the applicable law, Grisez’s reliance on the experts’ opinions was justified. See Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1037-38 (9th Cir.1995); see also Wallace v. Stewart, 184 F.3d 1112, 1116-18 (9th Cir.1999). Although Grisez did not provide the experts with background information about Easley and his case, we have held that an attorney’s failure to volunteer information to an expert who does not ask for it does not show ineffective assistance at the guilt phase of a trial. See Wallace, 184 F.3d at 1118; Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1037-38. Additionally, the defendant himself insisted on using an alibi defense. See Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Grisez’s performance in forgoing a mental 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that counsel was ineffective for failing to assert an entrapment defense that was legally available and where there was no other viable defense to present (B) holding that an attorney was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense because he did not understand the elements (C) holding that where defense turned on defendants credibility there could be no strategic basis for allowing jury to hear defendant had prior conviction for same offense for which he was being tried and concluding counsel rendered ineffective assistance (D) holding that a defendant abandons an issue for which no argument is offered on appeal (E) holding that there is no ineffective assistance if an attorney makes a strategic choice to pursue one defense and abandons a conflicting defense
Output (English): holding that an attorney was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense because he did not understand the elements