How have the courts treated the evidence presented in the guilt phase of a murder trial?

These errors and omissions cannot be dismissed as well-thought out tactical decisions, for counsel continued his ineffective presentation throughout the remaining phases of the trial. In the face of strong evidence of his client's insanity under the Drew standard (People v. Drew (1978) 22 Cal.3d 333, 345, 149 Cal.Rptr. 275, 583 P.2d 1318) which was in effect at the time of the offense, counsel presented no evidence and offered no argument whatsoever at the sanity phase. The final blow came in his closing argument at the penalty phase, when counsel effectively asked for a death sentence, telling the jury that such a disposition might be the best "release" for his client's multiple personality disorder. Viewed in the context of the entire [43 Cal.3d 387] trial, my colleagues' dismissal of the guilt phase performance as a "tactical choice" (maj. opn., ante, at p. 53 of 233 Cal.Rptr., at p. 244 of 729 P.2d) which counsel was forced into by the "overwhelming evidence of his client's guilt" (id., at p. 54 of 233 Cal.Rptr.,[729 P.2d 252] at p. 245 of 729 P.2d) is wholly unsupportable.

Page 61