Whether California's denial of materiality review violates a capital defendant's due process right of inquiry or his right to compulsory process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner’s attorney resigned from the California State Bar before Petitioner’s sentencing date, and records indicate that during Petitioner’s trial she had been working with both a prosecutor’s office and the State Bar as a secret informant. Successor counsel sought the ex-attorney’s State Bar records for material evidence of actual conflict of interest due to her informant activity, literary rights agreement, and theft of defense funds. The California Supreme Court held that no duty of inquiry was owed, and in camera review of the State Bar records was not allowed by state confidentiality laws, and Petitioner had not shown prejudice. Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002), left open the question whether a duty of inquiry applies in personal interest conflict cases, and the Federal Circuits are deeply split as to whether prejudice should be presumed in such cases under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980). See cases, infra, at 1213. The questions before this Court are: 1. Whether California’s denial of materiality review violates a capital defendant’s due process right of inquiry or his right to compulsory process where the trial court has notice of a conflict of interest with the attorney’s personal interest, inter alia, to avoid criminal charges? 2. Whether California’s application of the standard to this conflict of interest violates a capital defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel as determined by the Cuyler-presumption of prejudice? i