1) Given this Court has ruled that our criminal justice system is largely
a system of pleas rather than trials, is there a constitutional
requirement that counsel engage in plea negotiations with prosecuting
authorities in order to provide a defendant effective assistance
and protect the defendant 's full panoply of autonomous rights?

2) In a state, such as Colorado, when a defendant's priors are auto
matically introduced if he decides to testify, is there a
constitutional requirement that the defendant be advised that his
admission of prior convictions cannot be used to convict him of being
an habitual criminal at a latter bifuricated bench trial on that
matter?

Whether there is a constitutional requirement that counsel engage in plea negotiations with prosecuting authorities to provide effective assistance and protect a defendant's autonomous rights