REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
James R. Stringer seeks the writ of habe-as corpus to avoid his sentence of death by the Mississippi courts. We affirm the district court’s denial of the writ.
I. Background
On the evening of June 21, 1982, Ray McWilliams and his wife, Nell McWilliams, were murdered in their home in Jackson. The State’s case against James Stringer rested upon the testimony of Rhonda Brock and Mike Meddars, two of the five alleged participants in the crime, who testified that Stringer initiated the plan to rob the victims in their home and then to kill them in order to prevent detection. Stringer, who maintained his innocence throughout the trial, offered an alibi in his defense at the guilt phase of the proceeding. His son, Jimbo, and his girlfriend, Tammy, both of whom were under indictment for the same crime at the time of trial, also testified at the guilt phase and corroborated his alibi. Attorney Sam Wilkins, a personal friend of Stringer’s, and Wilkins’ associate, James Nelson, represented Stringer as well as the son and girlfriend.
Stringer was convicted of capital murder in the death of Nell McWilliams and sentenced to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230, 105 S.Ct. 1231, 84 L.Ed.2d 368 (1985). Subsequently that court denied Stringer’s motions to vacate or set aside judgment and sentence. Stringer v. State, 485 So.2d 274 (Miss.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922, 107 S.Ct. 327, 93 L.Ed.2d 300 (1986). In response to the habeas corpus petition the federal district court stayed execution on January 12,1987, held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of effective assistance of counsel, and then denied relief. Stringer v. Scroggy, 675 F.Supp. 356 (S.D.Miss.1987). The district court denied motion to alter or amend on January 22, 1988.
Stringer appeals on several grounds: (1) that prosecutorial misconduct caused the death sentence to be based on impermissible factors; (2) that the trial court’s instructions at the sentencing phase violated the Eighth Amendment, improperly limited the jury’s consideration of mitigating circumstances, and improperly guided the jury regarding its consideration of aggravating circumstances; (3) that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding lesser included offenses; (4) that trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance; (5) that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (6) that the introduction of certain photographs into evidence violated his due process [1111]*1111rights. . Because each of Stringer’s points of error is either procedurally barred or without merit, we affirm the district court’s denial of the writ.
II. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Stringer contends that his sentence of death should be overturned because of several alleged instances of prose-cutorial misconduct: (1) comments made during voir dire and closing argument; (2) photographs of the McWilliams introduced into evidence; and (3) comments made regarding Stringer’s refusal to take a polygraph test. Both the district court and the Mississippi Supreme Court held that this claim was procedurally barred because no objections were raised either at trial or on direct appeal. Stringer, 675 F.Supp. at 365; Stringer, 485 So.2d at 275. We agree that these complaints are procedurally barred. Moreover, we see no merit there. For example, Stringer complains about a statement the prosecutor made during closing, but the trial court did all that it was requested to do by sustaining the defense counsel’s objection. If the introduction of the photographs and comments about them and the polygraph test were improper under any law, there was clearly no prejudice to Stringer’s substantial rights. See Felde v. Blackburn, 795 F.2d 400, 403 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 210, 98 L.Ed.2d 161 (1987). As for the contention that the prosecutor misled the jury into believing that the decision on Stringer’s sentence rested with appellate judges rather than with them, in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), Stringer points to two statements made during voir dire of prospective jurors: (1) that there are “nine Judges sitting up there on the Supreme Court that I’ve got to talk to”; and (2) that “[t]he Court has to make a decision and then ultimately other Courts may have to make a decision.” Stringer has taken the prosecutor’s comments out of context. The prosecutor was explaining to a juror that the law required that his questions be precise, not arguing that higher authorities substituted their discretion for that of the jury on the matter of punishment. The statements would not lessen the jury’s sense of responsibility in considering the death sentence.
III. Jury Instructions
Stringer asserts several points of error based on the trial court’s instructions to the jury.
A. Life Option
Stringer contends that the trial court not only omitted necessary language from the instructions, but also included language “which would have misled the jury about whether mercy could be extended to the appellant.” Stringer failed to raise this point before the district court and we need not address it. See Willie v. Maggio, 737 F.2d 1372, 1387-88 n. 20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1002, 105 S.Ct. 415, 83 L.Ed.2d 342 (1984). Moreover, the trial court’s charge may not be construed as Stringer argues.
The trial court instructed the jury that it could return a life sentence if it found no aggravating circumstances or if it failed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances.1 In order to impose the death penalty, the jury was instructed that it must find both that [1112]*1112the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and that the death penalty should be imposed. Furthermore, the jury was told that the defendant would be sentenced to life imprisonment if they could not agree on punishment. These instructions did not make the death penalty mandatory. See Edwards v. Scroggy, 849 F.2d 204, 213 (5th Cir.1988) (citing Edwards v. Thigpen, 595 F.Supp. 1271, 1286 (S.D.Miss.1984)).
Stringer next complains that, as in Mills v. Maryland, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it must unanimously find mitigating circumstances before it might weigh them against aggravating circumstances. The result of such an instruction, Stringer alleges, is that the sentencing phase of the trial became subject to the possibility of a completely arbitrary decision to impose death because one juror could prevent all other jurors from considering a particular mitigating circumstance.
In Mills, the Supreme Court considered the propriety of a verdict form submitted to a jury in a Maryland state court and concluded that “there is a substantial probability that reasonable jurors, upon receiving the judge’s instructions in this case, and in attempting to complete the verdict form as instructed, well may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance.” Mills, 108 S.Ct. at 1870. In vacating the judgment which sustained the imposition of the death penalty, the Court focused on the specific instructions given in that particular case.
Although the trial court undoubtedly added “unanimously” by oversight as the third word in the instructions quoted below,2 a reading of the entire charge would not have led the jurors to think they were compelled to ignore mitigating circumstances (unless found unanimously) in determining an appropriate sentence for Stringer. The instructions given did not restrict the jury’s right and power to consider the appropriateness of the death penalty even after it found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances.
B. Mitigating Circumstances
Stringer claims that the trial court’s instructions improperly restricted the jury’s consideration of mitigating circumstances in violation of Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider as mitigating, among other things, “any and all other matters, facts or circumstances, or combination of circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life, character or record or any circumstance(s) of the offense brought before you during the trial of this cause which you, the Jury, deem to be mitigating on behalf of the defendant or which reasonably mitigate against imposition of the death penalty.” Under this instruction, Stringer’s attorney was free to argue and the jury was free to consider whatever mitigating evidence was raised.
[1113]*1113C. Aggravating Circumstances
Relying on Maynard v. Cartwright, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988), Stringer asserts that his death sentence should be set aside since the trial court failed to define the unconstitutionally overbroad “especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel” aggravating circumstance. The State maintains that our decision in Edwards v. Scraggy, 849 F.2d 204 (5th Cir.1988), forecloses Stringer’s argument. In Edwards, the defendant-appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support one of the aggravating circumstances found by the jury and that, therefore, his death sentence should be vacated. This court, assuming for the sake of argument that the aggravating circumstance complained of was invalid, determined that the death sentence should stand. In so holding, the court distinguished the case before it from that presented in Maynard:
[Maynard] was remanded to the Oklahoma court to determine as a matter of state law whether the sentence should be set aside. Unlike Oklahoma law, however, Mississippi law is clear that one invalid aggravating circumstance will not suffice to overturn a death penalty where other valid aggravating circumstances remain.
Edwards, 849 F.2d at 211 n. 7 (citations omitted). Actually, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s judgment which vacated the death sentence and remanded the cause to the state court for such further proceedings as it might wish to conduct.
The facts in Maynard are, however, distinguishable from those presented in Edwards and those presented here. In Maynard, the State advanced the argument that the death sentence should be upheld because there was a valid aggravating circumstance remaining. In rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court noted that at the time that Cartwright’s case was decided, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals itself would not attempt to save a death penalty when one of the aggravating circumstances was found invalid, but instead would automatically impose a sentence of life imprisonment. Noting that, since Cartwrights’ conviction, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had determined that it would not necessarily set aside a death penalty where on appeal one of several aggravating circumstances was found invalid, the Court wrote that “[w]hat significance these decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals have for the present case is a matter for the state courts to decide in the first instance.” Maynard, 108 S.Ct. at 1860. By contrast, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that a death sentence should be upheld even though an aggravating circumstance is found invalid or unsupported by the evidence, so long as at least one aggravating circumstance remains. See, e.g., Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473 (Miss. 1988) (en banc); Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1333, 1337 (Miss.1987), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1981, 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988); Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305, 314 (Miss.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1042, 107 S.Ct. 1986, 95 L.Ed.2d 826 (1987); Edwards v. State, 441 So.2d 84, 92 (Miss.1983).
There is another reason that Maynard does not control the disposition of this case. In Maynard, the Supreme Court did not directly address the specific issue confronting us here: Must a death sentence be vacated when one of the three statutory aggravating circumstances found by the jury is subsequently held to be invalid and the jury was instructed to weigh the statutory aggravating circumstances against all mitigating circumstances in determining an appropriate sentence? For the reasons given below, we conclude that it must not.
The Supreme Court, in Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983), addressed a similar issue involving Georgia’s capital sentencing scheme. In Zant, a jury found the defendant guilty of murder. The court then instructed the jury at the sentencing phase of the trial that it must find one or more statutory aggravating circumstances in order to fix punishment at death, but that in determining the appropriate sentence, “the jury was authorized to consider all of the evidence [1114]*1114received during the trial as well as all facts and circumstances presented in extenuation, mitigation, or aggravation during the sentencing proceeding.” Zant, 103 S.Ct. at 2737. The jury found three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced Stephens to death. The Georgia Supreme Court later held one of the statutory aggravating circumstances invalid on the ground that it was unconstitutionally vague, yet determined that the other two aggravating circumstances adequately supported the death sentence. Id. at 2738.
The United States Supreme Court ultimately upheld this decision, rejecting the defendant’s contention that Georgia’s statutory scheme was invalid under the holding in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). In so doing, the Court emphasized two important features of Georgia’s scheme which it determined adequately channelled the fact-finder’s discretion in imposing a sentence: first, that the jury was required to find at least one valid statutory aggravating circumstance and to identify it in writing, and second, that the state supreme court reviewed the record of every death penalty proceeding to determine whether the sentence was arbitrary or disproportionate. Zant, 103 S.Ct. at 2742. The Court summarized its cases concerning the treatment of statutory aggravating circumstances:
Our cases indicate, then, that statutory aggravating circumstances play a constitutionally necessary function at the stage of legislative definition: they circumscribe the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. But the Constitution does not require the jury to ignore other possible aggravating factors in the process of selecting, from among that class, those defendants who will actually be sentenced to death. What is important at the selection stage is an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.
Zant, 103 S.Ct. at 2743-44 (citations and footnote omitted).
The Mississippi capital sentencing scheme, though similar in many respects to Georgia’s scheme, differs in one material aspect. Like Georgia, Mississippi requires the jury to find at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt in order to consider imposing the death penalty. Like Georgia, Mississippi requires the state supreme court to review each death penalty for arbitrariness and proportionality. Unlike Georgia, however, Mississippi requires that the jury weigh statutory aggravating circumstances against all mitigating circumstances as part of its process in deciding an appropriate sentence. Therefore, in Mississippi, unlike in Georgia, the finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance plays some role in guiding the sentencing body in the exercise of its discretion in addition to its function of narrowing the class of defendants convicted of murder who are eligible for the death penalty. Even if the jury determines that the statutory aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, however, the jury is always entitled to return a sentence of life imprisonment.
We believe that the Mississippi capital punishment scheme, as applied in this case, passes constitutional muster for virtually the same reasons articulated by the Supreme Court in Zant. The jury in this case, like the jury in Zant, found the existence of three statutory aggravating circumstances and identified them in writing. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that the sentence of death was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings on each statutory aggravating circumstance, and that the sentence of death was not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar eases considering both the crime and the defendant. Stringer, 454 So.2d at 478-79.
The Supreme Court, in Maynard, determined that the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance, when submitted for the jury’s consideration without a limiting instruction, is unconstitutionally overbroad. The facts of this [1115]*1115case do not, however, require that Stringer’s death sentence be vacated. The jury found that two other aggravating circumstances existed as well. This satisfies any constitutional concerns and adequately channels the jury’s discretion. When the jury’s discretion in sentencing is narrowed by its finding of appropriate aggravating factors, there should be no constitutional objection to the jury considering the heinousness of the crime — even though heinousness, as defined or even under the facts, would not alone have narrowed the jury’s discretion so as to satisfy Eighth Amendment requirements. Contrast the case of Johnson v. Mississippi, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1981, 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988), where evidence supporting the invalidated aggravating circumstance was inadmissible and prejudicial.
That the jury was instructed to weigh statutory aggravating circumstances against mitigating circumstances does not alter the federal decision. We see no difference, other than one in semantics, between instructing a jury to weigh aggravating against mitigating circumstances in determining the sentence and instructing a jury to consider all aggravating and mitigating circumstances in deciding on the sentence. Had this jury been instructed as the jury was in Zant, it would have been constitutionally authorized to consider as aggravating all the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime — for instance, whether it believed the crime to be heinous, atrocious, or cruel — and to use those considerations in arriving at a sentencing decision. That it was not so instructed, that is, that the court limited its consideration to only statutory aggravating circumstances, is a matter of state law only. Zant, 103 S.Ct. at 2743 n. 17. We look to Mississippi to decide the impact of the invalid aggravating circumstance on Stringer’s death sentence. Mississippi has held that the invalidation of an aggravating circumstance will not affect the death sentence so long as there is at least one valid aggravating circumstance remaining. Here, two valid aggravating circumstances remained. We overrule Stringer’s argument.
D. Lesser Included Offense
Stringer next complains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense of non-capital murder or manslaughter. This is a new complaint, but it has no merit. Stringer introduced no evidence on which the jury rationally could have found him guilty of a lesser offense and acquitted him of the greater offense. See Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 635, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 2388, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980) (quoting Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1995, 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973)). Under the evidence presented at trial, either Stringer led a gang of robbers with the intent to murder the two victims, or he was at home nursing a back pain.
IV. Assistance of Trial Counsel
A. Failure to Present Mitigating Evidence
Stringer asserts that his right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial was violated in that his trial counsel neither prepared nor presented a case in mitigation at the sentencing phase of the trial. The district court held an evidentiary hearing limited to the issues of the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel and found that Stringer did receive effective assistance. Stringer’s trial attorneys, Sam Wilkins and James Nelson, and Stringer’s appellate counsel, Harry Kelly, testified at the hearing.
The United States Supreme Court articulated the standard by which we evaluate the effectiveness of counsel in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In order for a convicted defendant’s ineffective assistance claim to prevail, he must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency actually prejudiced his defense, thereby making the result of the trial unreliable. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Because it is all too easy for a reviewing court to conclude that a particular defense was unreasonable once that defense has proved unsuccessful, we give great deference to counsel’s performance [1116]*1116and evaluate its reasonableness in light of the facts and circumstances as they appeared to exist at the time of trial. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. Applying this standard to the facts before us, we conclude that Stringer received effective assistance at trial.
At the district court’s hearing, Wilkins testified that he had spent the majority of his time preparing for the guilt phase of the trial and that he was “devastated” when the jury returned a guilty verdict. He testified further that he could not recall the details of what occurred between the announcement of the guilty verdict and the sentencing phase of the trial or how the decision was reached not to present mitigating evidence. Wilkins did state, however, that he had not formally investigated possible mitigating evidence since he already had personal knowledge of Stringer’s background and friends.
Nelson, Wilkins’ associate, testified that he and Wilkins conferred with Stringer following the conclusion of the trial’s guilt phase, at which time they explained the purpose of the mitigation case and discussed which family members could testify. According to Nelson, Stringer told them in no uncertain terms that he did not want his family to testify in his behalf. Stringer did not testify at the hearing. It is now argued that even if Stringer forbade the use of family members as witnesses, he did not prohibit the use of other witnesses or other evidence.
The failure to present a case in mitigation during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial is not, per se, ineffective assistance of counsel. This court has often upheld decisions not to put on mitigating evidence where the decision resulted from a strategic choice. See, e.g., Moore v. Maggio, 740 F.2d 808, 315-16 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1032, 105 S.Ct. 3514, 87 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985); Lowenfield v. Phelps, 817 F.2d 285, 291 (5th Cir.1987), aff'd, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988).
Stringer contends, however, that Wilkins made no strategic choice in this case and cites as proof Wilkins’ statement at the habeas proceeding that he had no reason based on sound trial strategy for not preparing and presenting certain witnesses for the sentencing decision. We disagree. In concluding that Stringer received effective assistance at trial, the district court apparently discredited much of Wilkins’ testimony, which it was entitled to do. Furthermore, the district court had good reason to see Wilkins’ decision not to present additional mitigating evidence as understandable strategy. We agree with the district court for the reasons originally given by the Mississippi Supreme Court upon the direct appeal. 454 So.2d at 475-78.
The jury, in returning a guilty verdict, showed what they thought of Stringer’s alibi. They had found him guilty of a deliberate massacre of innocent human beings. The testimony of someone who had known and liked Stringer years ago was not going to lessen the impact of that evidence. Stringer’s only hope was to get at least one juror to have enough misgiving regarding his guilt to block the death penalty. Wilkins attempted to do just that by arguing that he and his client had to accept the verdict of guilty but that any qualms a juror might have regarding Stringer’s guilt should be resolved against imposing the death penalty. On the record before us, we are in no position to say that this was not the best that could be done for Stringer.
Furthermore, Stringer has been unable to establish that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s performance. Stringer asserts that Wilkins should have presented evidence of his war record, his medical record, and his reputation as a businessman and family man in mitigation. Based on the State’s evidence presented during the guilt phase, which the jury obviously believed, we cannot conclude that there is a reasonable probability that, but for Wilkins’ failure to present this evidence, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.
[1117]*1117B. Conflict of Interest
Stringer also asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective because he had a conflict of interest. Stringer bases his claim on the fact that Wilkins represented two other codefendants in addition to Stringer.
“ ‘Requiring or permitting a single attorney to represent codefendants ... is not per se violative of constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel.’ ” Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3120, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) (quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1178, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978)). In order to prevail on such a claim, having made no objection at trial, Stringer must demonstrate that an actual conflict existed by pointing to specific instances in the record which reflect that Wilkins’ performance in his behalf was adversely affected. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1718, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); United States v. Fox, 613 F.2d 99, 102 (5th Cir.1980). Speculative or merely hypothetical conflicts do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Baty v. Balkcom, 661 F.2d 391, 395 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2307, 73 L.Ed.2d 1308 (1982); Foxworth v. Wainwright, 516 F.2d 1072, 1077 n. 7 (5th Cir.1975). The petitioner must specifically identify instances in the record that reflect that his counsel “ ‘made a choice between possible alternative courses of action such as eliciting (or failing to elicit) evidence, helpful to one client but harmful to the other.’ ” United States v. Mers, 701 F.2d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir.) (quoting Comment, Conflict of Interests in Multiple Representation of Criminal Co-Defendants, 68 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 226, 232 (1977)), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 991, 104 S.Ct. 481, 78 L.Ed.2d 679 (1983). Stringer has not made that showing here.
Stringer contends that Wilkins’ representation of both himself and his son and codefendant, Jimbo Stringer, was an obvious actual conflict of interest because, under the State’s theory, Jimbo was targeted as a triggerman while Stringer was not. These facts alone do not establish an actual conflict of interest. Stringer’s defense was alibi, and all three of Wilkins’ clients told the same story. At the time that Wilkins undertook the representation of the code-fendants, he told them that if they all were telling the truth he would have no conflict of interest, but that if they had in fact committed the charged crime then he would have a conflict of interest. All three stood by their stories, as did the other alibi witnesses who spoke with Wilkins. Stringer did not contradict Wilkins’ testimony regarding this discussion at the hearing, and the district court accepted Wilkins’ testimony as true.
Stringer next alleges that an actual conflict is evident based on the prosecution’s reference in closing argument to five of the six defense witnesses as “Sam’s Army.” Each of those five witnesses had testified that Sam Wilkins represented him or her. The prosecution, in an attempt to discredit the witnesses, stated during argument that one of the many unanswered questions in the case was why all of these witnesses chose Sam Wilkins as their lawyer. Stringer argues that Wilkins’ readiness to represent so many people involved in the case that the prosecutor could get away with referring to the defense witnesses collectively as “Sam’s Army” worked to his detriment in that Wilkins never discussed other possible defenses that might be raised in Stringer’s behalf. But that suggests no conflict; no other defenses were discussed for the simple reason that this defense, assuming its truth, was the only defense for all of his clients.
Stringer also claims that Wilkins’ performance reflected a conflict of interest at the trial’s sentencing phase. He asserts that Wilkins should have argued to the jury that even under the State’s theory of the case, he was not the triggerman who actually killed Nell McWilliams. To make such an argument would have shown Stringer’s willingness to lay the blame for the murder on his own son in order to save himself. Wilkins testified that “even in retrospect” he would not have made this argument. Not only would it have undermined any doubt the jurors had regarding Stringer’s [1118]*1118guilt, but also it would have sent the wrong message to the jury regarding Stringer’s character and family commitment. Stringer has failed to demonstrate an actual conflict.
V. Assistance of Appellate Counsel
Stringer next contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal due to his appellate attorney’s alleged conflict of interest. Harry Kelly took over representation of both Stringer and his son, Jimbo, following Stringer’s conviction for murder. Stringer primarily urges in regard to this claim that Kelly rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to raise two issues in Stringer’s appeal that he did raise in Jimbo’s case. Those two issues were (1) the use of graphic photographs of the McWilliams and (2) the use of a facsimile riot gun.
Kelly testified at the hearing below that in conducting Stringer’s appeal he had chosen to concentrate only on what he considered to be the strongest arguments for Stringer. The Supreme Court stated in Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 536, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 2667, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986) (quoting Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-52, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 3313, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983)), that the “process of ‘winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on’ those more likely to prevail, far from being evidence of incompetence, is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.” Stringer asserts, however, that Kelly did not, in fact, winnow out only the weaker arguments from Stringer’s appeal. To support his contention, Stringer points to the two issues excluded from Stringer’s appeal that were included in Jimbo’s appeal and the additional points Kelly raised in the brief supporting Stringer’s motion for rehearing filed with the Mississippi Supreme Court.
That Kelly could have raised additional points on appeal and that he did raise additional points in a motion for rehearing do not indicate that he did not “winnow out” the weaker arguments from Stringer’s appeal. When Kelly came into the case Stringer had been tried and the record had been made. Kelly could do no more than present those arguments that he believed worked most strongly in Stringer’s favor.
Further, as the State points out and as the record reflects, Stringer did not have available to him the same arguments Kelly raised in Jimbo’s behalf regarding the photographs and the riot gun. In Jimbo’s trial for the murder of Ray McWilliams, the prosecutor displayed slides of Nell McWilliams to the jury during his closing argument. Later, on appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the introduction of the photographs into evidence was not reversible error, but that the display of the photographs during closing argument, when combined with other prosecutorial tactics, so prejudiced the jury that Jimbo could not have received a fair sentencing trial. See Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928, 934-35 (Miss.1986). One such tactic referred to was the prosecutor’s argument that this was the jury’s last chance to give Jimbo the death penalty since he had received a life sentence for Nell McWilliams’ murder. This argument was not made in Stringer’s trial.
Similarly, Kelly could not have made the same argument for Stringer with regard to the “facsimile riot gun”; that gun was never introduced at Stringer’s trial. The State did introduce the .38 caliber pistol found in Stringer’s boot when he was arrested. Kelly raised that point and the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed it on Stringer’s direct appeal. Stringer, 454 So. 2d at 475.
Stringer has not shown that an actual conflict of interest existed due to Kelly’s representation of both Stringer and Jimbo. After a full evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that Stringer had “been unable to present facts, and not mere inferences, to show that Kelly had an actual conflict of interest which rendered him ineffective.” Stringer, 675 F.Supp. at 364. We agree.
VI. Photographs
Finally, Stringer asserts for the first time on appeal that the admission of [1119]*1119certain photographs of the murder scene violated his due process rights. Stringer did not present this claim to the district court and therefore we need not consider it on appeal. See Willie, 737 F.2d at 1387-88 n. 20. Furthermore, the evidence clearly does not offend constitutional due process.
The stay of sentence is vacated. The judgment of the district court denying the writ is AFFIRMED.