Whether prejudice can be presumed when counsel's defective advice results in an unlawful and total closure of the courtroom to a defendant's family members prior to jury selection

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : I. This Court has established that a defendant's right to a public trial extends to voir dire. When counsel's defective advice given in advance of trial results in an unlawful and total closure of the courtroom to a defendant's family members prior to. the jury selection, can prejudice be presumed? II. In the context of a public trial violation where defense counsel does not know the law and is the sole party responsible for barring family members from the courtroom before the jury selection, should that attorney be allowed to circumvent the Constitution by seeking shelter under Strickland knowing that the burden will be placed squarely on the defendant to demonstrate either prejudice or fundamental unfairness when he later raises the error via an ineffectiveness claim? Til. If the public trial error complained of could not have > possibly been objected to at trial, nor raised on direct review, nor remedied by the.:trial court because defense counsel was solely responsible for the court closure in the first place; and it was later determined and admitted to by counsel that he mistakenly caused that closure as a result of not knowing the law; is the defendant essentially being denied the right to effective assistance of counsel when counsel breaches the duty of loyalty, perhaps the most basic of his duties?