Can a jury consider statements made by a defendant to a psychiatrist as evidence of legal insanity?

Defendant's statements to the psychiatrists were relevant to defendant's strategy of attempting to convince the jury that the psychiatrists were wrong, and that he did, in fact, suffer from mental illness or defect amounting to legal insanity. Defendant's claim on appeal that counsel should have sought a limiting instruction is patently meritless. Had counsel sought an instruction that the statements could be considered only to show the information upon which the psychiatrists' opinions that he was sane were based, he could not have asked the jury to consider the statements as evidence of legal insanity, an issue on which he bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence. ( People v. Drew, supra, 22 Cal.3d 333, 348-349, 149 Cal.Rptr. 275, 583 P.2d 1318.)