Initially the Petitioner asserted two constitutional violation claims of his
The first being that his counsel was ineffective for failing Sixth Amendment right :
to call, interview and subpoenaing a witness whom she was made aware of prior to
The omitted witness would have provided testimony regarding evidence relevant trial.
to the case.
Secondly, prior to trial, the Petitioner had made three attempts to terminate
appointed counsel's representation due to a complete breakdown in communication and a
Because the Petitioner filed a motion expressing his dissatisfaction lack of trust.
with counsel creates a conflict that was never resolved or responded to by the court
during or throughout the proceedings.
The case thus presents the following questions:

I. THE FIRST CIRCUIT'S MISAPPLICATION OF THE STRICKLAND STANDARD WARRANTS THIS
COURT'S ATTENTION

II. THE DECISION OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF OTHER
CIRCUITS

III. THE FIRST CIRCUIT'S NEGLECTFULNESS OF THE "CONFLICT-FREE" CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT WARRANTS THIS COURT'S ATTENTION

IV. THE STATE COURT OPINION BELOW LACKS A PLAIN STATEMENT THAT IT IS BASED ON A
PROCEDURAL DEFAULT AND THEREFORE THE MERITS ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION QUESTION
SHOULD BE REACHED

Did the petitioner's counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to call, interview, and subpoena a witness?