Did the Sixth Circuit depart from this Court's prior decisions and create a conflict with its own precedent and a split with other circuits requiring resolution by this Court when it held that the trial court did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel in proceeding with defendant's competency and criminal responsibility hearing, over the prosecution's objection, in the absence of his counsel and without securing an adequate waiver of his right to counsel, because the trial judge's action was found by the Sixth Circuit to not be state action under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)?

QUESTION PRESENTED DID THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEPART FROM THIS COURT’S PRIOR DECISIONS AND CREATE A CONFLICT WITH ITS OWN PRECEDENT AND A SPLIT WITH OTHER CIRCUITS REQUIRING RESOLUTION BY THIS COURT WHEN IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN PROCEEDING WITH DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY HEARING, OVER THE PROSECUTION’S OBJECTION, IN THE ABSENCE OF HIS COUNSEL AND WITHOUT SECURING AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ACTION WAS FOUND BY THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TO NOT BE STATE ACTION UNDER United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)? The District Court Answered this Question: No. The Sixth Circuit Answered this Question: No. The Respondent will Answer this Question: No. The Petitioner Answers this Question: Yes. PARTIES INVOLVED All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.