I. Attorney Panepinto made two separate "eleventh hour" disclosures before trial, with the latter discussing his prior representation and social relationship with the owners of the robbed establishment. The jury, which contemplated whether the crime was "staged" was presented very little evidence of an "inside job" theory.

Under the Sixth Amendment, is the standard enunciated in Cuvier v. Sullivan proper when the defendant objects to counsel's representation after the conflict is revealed?

A. Under the Sixth Amendment, did Attorney Panepinto's representation create a scenario mandating a presumption of prejudice given that more evidence reflecting a "staged" crime could have been presented?

B. Petitioner's codefendant/girlfriend agreed to testify against him as part of a plea bargain. She later withdrew her plea, and the Trial Court found that Petitioner procured her unavailability through coercion, while still finding her plea withdrawal to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Her uncontested statement to police was played at his trial.

Under the Sixth Amendment, does a witness's unavailability become procured when their decision to "plead the fifth" was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent?

A. Should Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right override his girlfriend's Fifth Amendment right when her statement was the only evidence directly inculpating him?

B.

II.

Whether the standard enunciated in Cuyler v. Sullivan applies when a defendant objects to counsel's representation after a conflict is revealed