Whether the Eleventh Circuit's categorical rule barring a showing of adverse effect in the multiple-counsel context adequately protects defendants from the harms of conflicted counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. On review of petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s conflict of interest in plea negotiations, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that petitioner’s contemporaneous retention of other, nonconflicted counsel categorically precluded a showing of adverse effect under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980). Does the Eleventh Circuit’s categorical rule barring a showing of adverse effect in the multiplecounsel context adequately protect defendants from the harms of conflicted counsel or, as other Circuits have concluded, are factual findings on the conflicted representation needed where the government relies on multiple-counsel representation to dispute adverse effect? 2. Where Brady and Giglio material that the government suppressed until after trial consists of undisputed evidence that its chief witness made bizarre, false allegations against petitioner that called into question his credibility and mental health, see Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 8 (1956), and where the witness offered uncontradicted sworn posttrial allegations that he was coached to provide false testimony to defeat a motion to suppress and to establish U.S. jurisdiction for the prosecution, should the petitioner be granted a certificate of appealability on his claim of erroneous denial of an evidentiary hearing on the due process violations? ii INTERESTED PARTIES There are no