Does the Sixth Amendment require a trial court to conduct a competency colloquy, pursuant to this Court's holding in Faretta v. California, where a defendant makes a mid-trial demand to represent himself (alleging a conflict with counsel), and if so, is the trial court required to conduct the colloquy and allow that defendant to proceed pro se if it determines he is competent?

Was the Petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and does the Constitution require an appellate court to apply the cumulative error analysis to ineffective assistance of counsel claims pursuant to the principles of this Court's holding in Kyles v. Whitley, and Chambers v. Mississippi?

Was the Petitioner deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial where the defense was taken by surprise by the evidence offered, and if so, pursuant to this Court's holding in Oregon v. Kennedy, does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bar retrial where a multitude of prosecutorial misconduct was undertaken to goad the defense into asking for a mistrial, and where the judge prevented juror review of admitted exculpatory police reports subsequent to an expression of a fear of dismissal?

Does the Sixth Amendment require a trial court to conduct a competency colloquy where a defendant makes a mid-trial demand to represent himself?