Whether the trial court's refusal to allow the defendant to testify by narrative violated her right to effective assistance of counsel

QUESTION PRESENTED The state trial judge who presided over Petitioner Marian Papcsi Owens’ murder trial refused to let her fire her lawyer because of her mental illness. Her lawyer, while recognizing her absolute right to testify at her trial, wanted Ms. Owens to be allowed to testify by narrative because he did not feel that he could ask any questions that would be helpful to her defense. But the trial judge, over vigorous objection, made him question his client. His direct examination of his client was, as he told the judge at one point before being ordered to continue, “selling her out and [he felt] horrible about what [he was] doing...” [App. 46]. Below, both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit refused to issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on Ms. Owen’s habeas petition. A COA was needed because a federal habeas petitioner challenging a state conviction cannot obtain appellate review unless and until a COA issues. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A COA must issue whenever “reasonable jurists could debate whether ... the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The question presented here is the following: 1. Did the Court of Appeals err below in denying Ms. Owens a COA as to whether Ms. Owens received effective assistance of counsel when the i trial judge forced counsel to ask questions of his client that trial counsel believed fatal to her defense?