Did Louisiana's courts violate Grover D. Cannon's Sixth Amendment rights recognized in McCoy by allowing Mr. Cannon's defense counsel over Mr. Cannon's strenuous objection to pursue a mens rea defense

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED In People v. Flores, 34 Cal. App. 5th 270, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (2019), the court found Roberto Ignacio Flores’ Sixth Amendment rights recognized in McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 1512 (2018), were violated when defense counsel over Mr. Flores’ objections pursued a mens rea defense that conceded Mr. Flores committed the actus reus. Accord United States v. Read, 918 F.3d 712, 719 (9th Cir. 2019) (“We hold that, in light of McCoy, Read’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial judge permitted counsel to present an insanity defense against Read’s clear objection.”); see, e.g., ARTICLE: The Real McCoy: Defining the Defendant’s Right to Autonomy in the Wake of McCoy v. Louisiana, 53 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 405 (Winter 2022); RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: A Vociferous No Means No: How McCoy Mastered His Own Defense and Reestablished the Right to Autonomy, 93 Tul. L. Rev. 1005, 1018 (2019); THE SUPREME COURT 2017 TERM: LEADING CASE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Sixth Amendment -Assistance of Counsel -Capital Punishment -McCoy v. Louisiana, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 377 (2018); but see McCoy, 138 S. Ct., at 1513-14, 1517 (Alito, J., dissenting). Did Louisiana’s courts violate Grover D. Cannon’s Sixth Amendment rights recognized in McCoy by allowing Mr. Cannon’s defense counsel over Mr. Cannon’s strenuous objection to pursue a mens rea defense—that Mr. Cannon or the person who killed Shreveport Police Officer Thomas J. LaValley had acted in self-defense— effectively conceding Mr. Cannon committed the actus reus.