Whether a state precedent violates the Supremacy Clause and the 6th Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a state precedent which uses a state rule of procedure to disregard its own test for balancing the Constitutional interests implicated by a proposed disqualification of criminal defense counsel violates the Supremacy Clause and the 6th Amendment. Whether, in cases of joint criminal defense representation, a prosecutor’s proffer of a cooperation plea agreement creates an unwavable conflict of interest for joint counsel sufficient to override a Defendant’s 6tt Amendment right to counsel of choice. Whether, in cases of joint criminal defense representation, a theoretical potentiality, not based on the record, that one codefendant may wish to share material information with her lawyer but not share it with her codefendants creates an unwavable conflict of interest for joint counsel sufficient to override a Defendant’s 6» Amendment right to counsel of choice. Whether a defendants due process rights have been violated by a trial court disqualifying their counsel of choice (a) without permitting Petitioners to obtain their duly requested discovery, (b) by basing its decision on an improper standard of review, (c) by not conducting its inquiry in chambers, (d) by refusing Petitioners’ joint counsel the opportunity to make argument or vouch the record following the Rule 44(c) colloquy, and (e) by hearing a State’s motion to disqualify counsel when they lacked standing to do so.