1. On review of petitioner's claim of ineffective
assistance based on counsel's conflict of interest in plea
negotiations, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that
petitioner's contemporaneous retention of other, non-conflicted counsel categorically precluded a showing of
adverse effect under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335
(1980). Does the Eleventh Circuit's categorical rule
barring a showing of adverse effect in the multiple-counsel context adequately protect defendants from the
harms of conflicted counsel or, as other Circuits have
concluded, are factual findings on the conflicted
representation needed where the government relies on
multiple-counsel representation to dispute adverse
effect?

2. Where Brady and Giglio material that the
government suppressed until after trial consists of
undisputed evidence that its chief witness made
bizarre, false allegations against petitioner that called
into question his credibility and mental health, see
Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 8 (1956), and
where the witness offered uncontradicted sworn post-trial allegations that he was coached to provide false
testimony to defeat a motion to suppress and to
establish U.S. jurisdiction for the prosecution, should
the petitioner be granted a certificate of appealability
on his claim of erroneous denial of an evidentiary
hearing on the due process violations?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit's categorical rule barring a showing of adverse effect in the multiple-counsel context adequately protects defendants from the harms of conflicted counsel