Does the Eleventh Circuit's rule in Crutchfield v. Wainwright abrogate or modify the Supreme Court decision in Geders v. United States, and if not, is the petitioner entitled to have the Court grant certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand to the Eleventh Circuit to reverse the denial of a COA on the issue of whether Crutchfield violated Geders by requiring a testifying criminal defendant to demonstrate need or cause to speak to counsel over a long overnight trial recess?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION I , DOES THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S RULE ENUNCIATED IN CRUTCHFIELD v WAINWRIGHT, 803 F3d1103 (11th Cir. 1986) ABROGATE OR MODIFY THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AS STATED IN GEDERS v UNITED STATES, 425 U.S. 80 (1976), AND IF NOT IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO HAVE THIS COURT ISSUE AN ORDER FROM THIS COURT GRANTING CERTIORARI, VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING TO THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE BARBARA LAGOA, TO REVERSE HER DECISION DENYING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR COA, AND GRANT THE COA FOR THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ON NOT DID CRUTCHFIELD HOLDING VIOLATE THE RULE IN GEDERS BY IMPERMISSIBLY REQUIRING A_ TESTIFYING CRIMINAL DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATE NEED OR CAUSE TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL OVER A LONG OVERNIGHT TRIAL RECESS. iii