Should a post-conviction court presume prejudice where the prosecutor obtains a defendant's attorney-client and workproduct privileged notes prior to trial and introduces those notes as evidence of his guilt?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case arises from a domestic dispute involving Petitioner, Robert 8. Schwartzberg. The alleged victim claimed that he attacked and sexually assaulted her. Mr. Schwartzberg claimed that she was the aggressor and that he acted in self-defense. Following his conviction, Mr. Schwartzberg sought post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The questions presented are: 1. Should a post-conviction court presume prejudice where the prosecutor obtains a defendant’s attorney-client and _ workproduct privileged notes prior to trial and introduces those notes as evidence of his guilt? 2. Does the standard under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) require courts to consider the cumulative effect of all errors of counsel in determining whether a defendant satisfied the prejudice prong, or does a defendant need to raise an independent “claim” of cumulative error in his post-conviction pleadings before a court can consider the cumulative effect of those errors? 3. Does a defendant carry his burden under Strickland where his counsel failed to (a) move to suppress attorney-client and work ii product privileged notes or object to their introduction at trial as evidence that the defendant committed the charged offenses as well as two other uncharged crimes; (b) object to a flawed self-defense jury instruction that, at the time of trial, Florida courts had condemned as erroneous; (c) present the testimony of an available first responder who would have testified that the defendant’s wounds were “defensive” in nature, that the victim had no observable injuries and a calm demeanor, and that the defendant’s heart was racing?