Should an attorney afraid of their client be allowed to represent the client without the client's knowledge?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Now before this Court is one of the most pressing issues that face criminal defendants: would you want an attorney who was afraid of you because of the attorney’s perceived feeling of intimidation and your reputation to represent you during your trial, including taking charge of the defense case, and through your appeals process? The resounding answer to that question is no. The Supreme Court has never addressed a case wherein one of the members of a defendant’s defense team felt fear and intimidation during the pendency of a defendant’s case. And this member of the defense team was in charge of presenting the defense in a RICO case in which withdrawal was the defendant’s primary defense, yet the defense failed to call the defendant. Here, Petitioner, John Burke, suffered under a conflict of interest during his entire representation by his trial and appellate counsel, Ying Stafford.! The Second Circuit erred when it determined that no conflict existed when there was prima facie evidence, by way of Ying Stafford’s admission before the New York State Appellate Division, First Department’s Grievance committee that she felt “fear and intimidation” during her representation of Mr. Burke based on his “behavior and reputation”. Instead of remanding the matter down to the District Court to determine the scope of the conflict, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary denial of Petitioner’s motion to vacate. Ms. Stafford’s actions in the case at bar had a devastating effect on Petitioner’s defense at trial, resulting in Petitioner not being called as a witness to present a defense of withdrawal from the Government’s allegations that he was a member of the Gambino Crime Family up until the time of his indictment in 2008. It was Petitioner’s, and Petitioner’s decision alone, that should have controlled in the instant case. And as this Court knows, the only person that can “speak to” the state of mind with regard to Petitioenr’s withdrawal, was Petitioner See Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106, 113-114 (2018). We ask this Court to address this pressing concern: should an attorney that is so afraid of her client be allowed to continue representing the client without the client’s knowledge of said attorney’s fear? The resounding answer to that question, which this Court has never addressed, is no. 1 Petitioner did not find out about this conflict until July of 2019, when Ms. Stafford responded to Peitioner’s grievance that he filed before the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department. Ms. Stafford lied to Petitioner about filing a writ of certiorari to this Court after his conviction was affirmed and then created a fake letter and docket number. Petitioner’s 28 U.S. Code § 2255 was untimely due to the misrepresentation by Ms. Stafford. And while Petitioner’s 28 U.S. Code § 2255 was ultimately heard on the merit based upon Ms. Stafford’s misrepresentations, this revelation did not occur until Petitioner had already filed his initial 28 U.S. Code § 2255. il The following questions are presented. 1. Did the Second Circuit err when it found that there was not an actual conflict without ordering a hearing in the District Court when defense counsel admitted that she was fearful and intimidated during her representation of Appellant? 2. Did the Second Circuit err when it failed to remand the matter for a hearing to determine whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to call Petitioner as a witness to establish his defense of withdrawal? iii