Whether the prophylaxis of Cuyler should be extended to define the term 'adverse affect' to establish a demonstration test involving actual conflicts between an Attorney's personal interest and his Client's interest

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advance a plausible alternative defense that would have exonerated petitioner. Petitioner was convicted, mainly, upon the testimony of Alexis Manley and Barbara Kucharska. Multiple witnesses were available to testify at trial that would have assisted in establishing an alternative defense theory. Brady material was noticed to counsel on March 17, 2014, months in advance of trial. ; The Brady evidence would have corroborated witness testimony that the injuries claimed by Manley and Kucharska, were not the result of an assault by the : i petitioner. The Court of Appeals agreed that the omitted Brady page, that : . trial counsel claimed as the reason for not investigating Brady material, was not material, but only provided more detail of the same. Petitioner retained counsel for $20,000.00 and paid $7,500.00 for counsel's services, four months after the Court appoints him due to indigence. Then, trial counsel tells the petitioner, "If you don't pay me my [*]ucking MONEY, GRAHAM, YOU'RE GOING TO PRISON I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT, PAY ME!!"' Counsel labors under an actual conflict of interest between counsel's personal interest of money over peti= tioner's interest of proving innocence. Petitioner presented evidence of the “adverse affect" as trial transcripts showing trial counsel passing on Brady material, and witnesses vital to the defense. The state and District Courts apply Cuyler, but fail to apply adverse affect. The case thus presents the following question: Whether the prophylaxis of Cuyler should be extended to define the term “adverse affect" to establish a demonstration test involving actual conflicts between an Attorney's personal interest and his Client's interest. i.