Does the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution guarantee the right to conflict free counsel if defense counsel represents multiple suspects in the same homicide?

QUESTION PRESENTED Mr. Garcia-Toro is sentenced to life in prison; his Cuyahoga County Public Defenders had a clear conflict of interest by representing two other suspects in this Aggravated Murder and Attempted Murder. The shooter was dressed in black with a black mask as he ambushed the victims sitting in a parked car. The homicide victim was shot several times and the surviving victim was wounded. However, the survivor could not identify the shooter because of his black disguise. There was no physical or forensic evidence linking any person to this shooting. Only Facebook messages and communications under a fake name were linked to Mr. Garcia-Toro and then only by the homicide victim’s vengeful brother. No experts linked the Facebook account to Mr. Garcia-Toro and he was not arrested until more than a year after the crimes. It was thus critical for defense counsel to point to other suspects, including two men named Lopez, that the Cuyahoga County Public Defenders represented or had represented recently. Instead of timely withdrawing and asking the Court to appoint non-conflicted counsel, the Public Defenders asked Mr. Garcia-Toro to waive his right to conflict free counsel as the jury panel entered the courtroom to commence voir dire. The trial judge acquiesced. Does the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution guarantee the right to conflict free counsel if defense counsel represents multiple suspects in the same homicide? 2 LIST OF RELATED CASES 1. State v. Garcia-Toro, Supreme Court of Ohio, Jurisdiction declined, Case No. 2020-0202, 4-14-20 2. State v. Garcia-Toro, Ohio Eighth District, 2019 Ohio 5336, Case No. CA 107940