Does Wheat v. United States clearly establish that trial courts must consider reasonable alternatives before disqualifying a criminal defendant's counsel of choice?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 158 (1988) clearly establish that trial courts must consider reasonable alternatives before Lote oO disqualifying a criminal defendant’s counsel of choice. . 2. When an entire defense strategy hinges on a critical piece of crossexamination evidence for the prosecution’s only eyewitness, is it clearly established that forgetting to cross-examine the eyewitness on that issue constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. 3.° Did the Seventh Circuit incorrectly conclude that the Illinois appellate court acted reasonably when it held that the prosecution . did not knowingly use false testimony to convict Mr. Weaver. : i