Does ruling the substantive nature of materially relevant documentary evidence with apparent exculpatory value effected non-existent, without applying any statutorily required standards of evidentiary error, contravene constitutionally guaranteed substantial rights by applying standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in a vacuum?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED There is a growing sinkhole-sized need for some things to be simply clearer. 1. Does rulifg the substantive nature of materially relevant documentary evidence with apparent _ exculpatory value effected non-existent, without applying any statutorily required standards of evidentiary error, contravene constitutionally guaranteed substantial rights by applying standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in a vacuum? 2. Does it breach well-established law to rule that actual existing conflicted representation, memorialized by counsel in writing, does not require upholding voluntary “knowing and _ intelligent” . standards for valid waivers of substantial rights? i