I. Does the requirement to prove prejudice under this Court's previous decision in Latter v Cooper, place a burden on the accused that this Court deemed unnecessary in United States v Cronic, when an attorney is "totally absent" from a critical stage of the proceedings?

II. Does this Court's previous decision in Latter v Cooper, and United States v Cronic, contradict each other in such a way as to create a vacuum of constitutional magnitude that is capable of repetition, yet evading review?

III. Because this Court has previously deemed our system to be a system of plea bargains, as opposed to a system of trials, and therefore concluding that the plea process is almost always a critical stage, does the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance require counsel to inform his client of any and all plea agreements offered by the prosecutor, including those offers that the trial court may refuse to accept, for the reason that the failure to do so would ultimately deny the accused of the entire critical stage of plea negotiations, that the prosecutor, who by making such an offer, has demonstrated a willingness to participate in?

Does the requirement to prove prejudice under Lafler v Cooper place a burden on the accused that is deemed unnecessary in United States v Cronic