Is a criminal defendant deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to her lawyer's conflict of interest?

QUESTION PRESENTED On de novo review, is a criminal defendant deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because of her lawyer's conflict of interest when, at the time of her trial, her lawyer is being prosecuted for drug possession and forgery by the same agency prosecuting her and foregoes the opportunity to further question a prosecution investigator on an issue he describes to the court as being defendant’s “whole case?” i PARTIES AND LIST OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS The parties to this proceeding are Petitioner Darla Ray Jones and Respondent D.K. Johnson, Warden. The California Attorney General represents Respondent. On March 4, 2018, Jones was convicted by a Los Angeles County jury of two counts of making criminal threats and two counts of assault with a firearm in People v. Jones, case no. BA887754, Judge C.H. Rehm, presiding. 4 RT 1230-1234.! The jury found true the allegations that Jones personally used a firearm in committing each offense. Jd. On August 27, 2013, Judge Rehm sentenced Jones to 13 years in state prison and entered judgment against her. 4 RT 2101, 2119. The California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, per Justice Miller, Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution, Acting Presiding Justice Chaney, and Justice Johnson, affirmed the judgment on appeal and dismissed Jones’s habeas corpus petition in an unpublished opinion filed on November 24, 2014 in People v. Jones and In re 1“RT” refers to the reporter’s transcript of trial lodged by Respondent in district court. See district court docket 91, lodgment 25. Unless otherwise noted, all references to “docket” are to the district court’s docket in Jones’s habeas corpus case. ii Jones, case nos. B251324 and B255936. Pet. App. 70-82.2 The Court of Appeal denied Jones’s petition for rehearing on December 18, 2014. Pet. App. 69. The California Supreme Court denied Jones’s petition for review on February 11, 2015. Pet. App. 68. On February 21, 2015, Jones filed a pro se federal habeas corpus petition in Jones v. Johnson, C.D. Cal. case no. CV 15-013876-MWF-SHK. Pet. App. 14, 16. On March 22, 2016, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, per Justice Johnson, Acting Presiding Justice Chaney, and Justice Liu, denied a habeas petition filed by Jones in In re Jones, case no. B262848. Pet. App. 64-67. The California Supreme Court denied Jones’s petition for review on June 15, 2016. Pet. App. 63. On December 28, 2016, Jones filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court raising claims that are not at issue here. Pet. App. 16. The court summarily denied the petition on March 15, 2017. Pet. App. 16-17. On August 22, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani filed a report recommending that Jones’s federal petition be denied. Pet. App. 14-43. On April 3, 2020, United States District Judge 2“Pet, App.” refers to Petitioner’s