Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: The Court emphasized that reasonable strategic choices by counsel after an appropriate investigation of the facts and law are "virtually unchallengeable." Id. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Those "made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation." .Id. The responsibility rests with petitioner to "overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action 'might be considered sound trial strategy.' ", Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (citation omitted). The decision to. rely on the plea colloquy for evidence , related to respondent's extreme stress, caused by his inability to support his family was found reasonable because it prevented the State from cross-e 2015) (<HOLDING>). With respect to ineffective assistance of
Holding statements: (A) holding state court unreasonably applied strickland test because counsels failure to investigate expert testimony which called into doubt the central forensic evidence linking the inmate to the crime was ineffective assistance and prejudicial to defendant (B) holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy (C) holding trial counsels failure to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (D) holding that counsels failure to present expert testimony explaining a possible causal link between defendants childhood and his crime was prejudicial (E) holding that the state court unreasonably applied chapman but that the error was not prejudicial under brecht
Output:
(A)