Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court impaired the obligation of a contract in contravention of Article I, sec. 10, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, to pay attorney's fees for an indigent defendant

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court impaired the obligation of a contract in contravention of Article I, sec. 10, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, to pay attorney's fees for an indigent defendant who, while having court-appointed trial counsel, retained private appellate counsel to defend him against an interlocutory appeal brought by the prosecutor, where the state rule of criminal procedure provides payment of attorney’s fees for the defendant's choice of counsel and the funds for the interlocutory defense are provided for and appropriated by state statute? 2. Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s new requirement that attorney’s fees be advanced to secure a defendant’s right to be reimbursed for exercising their right to choose counsel a violation of the Sixth Amendment? 3. Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’ s new requirement of fee advancements prospectively denies Equal Protection of the Law to the choice of counsel, provided by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, by placing on indigent defendants an undue monetary burden to secure the right to their choice of counsel, where the legislative intent governing payment of fees is contained within the state statute appropriating the payment of legal fees and costs for attorneys defending against interlocutory review brought pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 by the prosecutor? (i)