1.) Has the Supreme Court overruled United States v. Cronic, eliminating the presumption that an accused has suffered Constitutional error without the showing of prejudice, when counsel is either totally absent from, or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of trial?

2.) Does the fact that counsel was granted an additional 30 days to meet with accused for pre-trial preparation, because they had not done so, erase the presumption of prejudice, when counsel still fails to meet with the accused in those allocated 30 days?

3.) Whether lower Courts should explain why the Cronic analysis does not apply when denying a defendant's "absence of counsel during a critical stage" claim under Strickland?

Has the Supreme Court overruled United States v. Cronic, eliminating the presumption that an accused has suffered Constitutional error without the showing of prejudice, when counsel is either totally absent from, or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of trial?