Under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), to establish a Sixth Amendment violation, a defendant must prove that his lawyer had an "actual conflict," which means a conflict that "adversely affected" his lawyer's performance. In the 42 years since Cuyler was decided, the Court has never explained how a defendant shows such an adverse effect. The first question presented is whether the Seventh Circuit's formulation of the adverse effect standard—which focuses on the execution of strategies and tactics rather than the lawyer's overall performance—is too demanding a burden, particularly in the guilty plea context.

In Machibroda U. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962), this Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 requires courts to grant hearings to those who make specific and detailed factual allegations that, even if improbable, would entitle them to relief if true. The second question presented is whether a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to resolve his claim under Cuyler where the petitioner establishes his trial counsel had a conflict of interest and seeks to prove the conflict "adversely affected" his counsel's performance.

Whether the Seventh Circuit's formulation of the adverse effect standard under Cuyler v. Sullivan is too demanding, particularly in the guilty plea context