Whether the trial court's refusal to allow the defendant to retain his own counsel of choice deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to choose the fundamental direction of his defense

QUESTION PRESENTED The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be represented by an attorney who the defendant can afford to hire. Before his trial began, Petitioner Payman Borhan asked the trial court to substitute his appointed counsel for a private retained lawyer who was sitting in the courtroom ready to assist as Borhan’s lawyer. The trial court denied Borhan’s request and refused to listen to his reasons for making it. As a result, Borhan was assisted by appointed counsel who presented no witnesses, opening argument, evidence, or viable defense. The questions presented are these: (1) Under the modest standard for a certificate of appealability, is it at least debatable that the state court unreasonably ignored both Borhan’s justifications for seeking retained counsel and the critical fact that counsel was waiting in the courtroom ready to assist as Mr. Borhan’s lawyer? (2) Is Borhan’s claim worthy of proceeding to an appeal because the trial court’s refusal to allow him retained counsel of his choice deprived him of his right—as set forth in McCoy v. Louisiana—to choose the fundamental direction of his case? i