Can law enforcement officials refuse to honor a defendant's request for the presence of their retained counsel at a "critical stage" without a countervailing interest, and not run afoul of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel of choice as long as they provide substitute counsel?

Is it time for this Court to revisit the issue regarding substitute counsel that has left open in Wade where law enforcement officials have used this point to circumvent a defendant's right to the presence of their retained counsel at "critical stages"?

Is it time to modify the precedent regarding offense-specificity where there are factually related charged and uncharged offenses that are so inextricably intwined that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel must prevail?

Can law enforcement officials refuse to honor a defendant's request for the presence of their retained counsel at a 'critical stage' without a countervailing interest, and not run afoul of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel of choice as long as they provide substitute counsel?