Whether the state supreme court order for attorney disbarment is inconsistent with the standards set forth in Selling v. Radford and In re Ruffalo, and is violative of U.S. Const. AMENDS. V, VI & XIV; and Pa. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 1

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the state supreme court order for attorney disbarment is inconsistent with the standards set forth in Selling v. Radford, 248 U.S. 46, 50-51 (1917), and In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550 (1968), and is violative of U.S. Const. AMENDS. V, VI & XIV; and Pa. ConstT., art. I, § 9, cl. 1, as the court allowed the ineffective assistance of Petitioner’s trial counsel to preclude the admission of relevant, material mitigation evidence of his Medical and Neuropsychological Expert Witness Reports—despite the state declaring that it would not be prejudiced by its admission—thereby depriving Petitioner of his constitutional rights to Due Process and effective assistance of counsel.