Where petitioner's defense in the trial court was based on Self-Defense, petitioner did not fully trust his Dept. of Assigned Counsel lawyer, and thus obtained a privately retained Co-Counsel, private Co-Counsel's 'Notice of Appearance' was granted by the trial court: did the trial court err when it performed a direct arbitrary action in excluding petitioner's Co-Counsel in the middle of trial?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.) Where petitioner's defense in the trial court was based on Self-Defense, petitioner did not fully trust his Dept. of Assigned Counsel lawyer, and thus obtained a privately retained Co-Counsel, private Co-Counsel's 'Notice of Appearance’ was granted by the trial court,:did the trial court err when it performed a direct arbitrary action in excluding petitioner's Co-Counsel in the middle of trial? : On this 1st Claim, did the lower courts fail to properly address this Claim based on the denial of petitioner's 6th Amend. U.S. Constitutional Claim, and, on the erroneous answer of law that because petitioner remained represented at all times by his publicly assigned lawyer, petitioner incurred no substantial harm? 2.) Did remaining Counsel render deficient performance below , an objective standard of reasonableness, when both at Opening Statement & Closing Statements the defense asserted petitioner had acted in the Defense of Another, to wit-his passenger, Ms. Hernandez, and, when petitioner's passenger, Regina Hernandez, testified she was in fear for her life and was scared, saw the victim in the case point a rifle at her & at petitioner, petitioner then took to the stand to testify affirmatively he acted (also) in the Defense of Another [to wit his passenger, ] but Counsel failed to adequately propose a ‘Defense of Another' Jury Instruction for the jury, did Counsel render Ineffective Assistance? 3.) Where the Western U.S. District Court of Washington engaged in an extensive review of petitioner's Claims 1 & 2, of this writ of certiorari, and the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir., used petitioner's 2 page handwritten ‘Notice of Appeal' as means to deny him a Certificate of Appealability, . should this Court grant petitioner his timely filed writ of certiorari, where both the lower courts denial of a Cert. of Appealability are in direct conflict with this Court's admonitions of Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003)?