Whether a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28-U.S.C-2255 to resolve his claim under Cuyler-v-Sullivan-446-U.S-335-1980

QUESTION PRESENTED In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), this Court held that when a petitioner shows that his counsel (a) his counsel had a conflict of interest; and (b) counsel’s performance was adversely affected because of that conflict, the petitioner is entitled to a new trial. In Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962), this Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 requires courts to grant hearings to those who make specific and detailed factual allegations that, even if improbable, would entitle them to relief if true. The question presented is: Whether a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to resolve his claim under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), where the petitioner establishes his trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest and seeks to prove the conflict “adversely affected” his counsel’s performance. ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES e United States Supreme Court: Michael Coscia v. United States, No. 17-1099 e United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Michael Coscia v. United States, No. 20-1032 e United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: United States v. Coscia, No. 19-2010 e United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: United States v. Coscia, No. 16-3017 e United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: United States v. Coscia, No. 19-CV-5003 e United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: United States v. Coscia, No. 14-CR-551