Does Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) clearly establish that trial courts must consider reasonable alternatives before disqualifying a criminal defendant's counsel of choice.

When an entire defense strategy hinges on a critical piece of cross-examination evidence for the prosecution's only eyewitness, is it clearly established that forgetting to cross-examine the eyewitness on that issue constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland.

Did the Seventh Circuit incorrectly conclude that the Illinois appellate court acted reasonably when it held that the prosecution did not knowingly use false testimony to convict Mr. Weaver.

Does Wheat v. United States clearly establish that trial courts must consider reasonable alternatives before disqualifying a criminal defendant's counsel of choice?