Was Petitioner denied her state and federal rights to the effective assistance of counsel, and did Michigan Court of Appeals err when it confirmed with the trial court that counsel was effective though he did not challenge for cause three jurors who had conflicts of interest in the case and instead used peremptory challenges to remove them, using up over half of Petitioner's peremptory challenges, causing prejudice and leaving her without an impartial jury?

QUESTION PRESENTED Was Petitioner denied her state and federal rights to the effective assistance of counsel, and did Michigan Court of Appeals err when it confirmed with the trial court that counsel was effective though he did not challenge for cause three jurors who had conflicts of ; interest in the case and instead used peremptory ; challenges to remove them, using up over half of Petitioner’s peremptory challenges, causing prejudice and leaving her without an impartial jury?