Does Pennsylvania's allowance of unitary review require a grant of relief nunc-pro-tunc to individuals whose counsel wrongly imposed a Hobson's-choice

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In states that allow unitary review, remand for ; state court review and/or federal habeas corpus review nunc pro tunc is appropriate when counsel ; wrongly impose a Hobson’s choice between either ; forfeiting the right to counsel or accepting the inappropriate imposition of mutual exclusivity of , direct appeal and post conviction issues. This case ; arises from Pennsylvania, which allows unitary review. The precedents established by the second impeachment of President Trump and _ by Counterman v. Colorado, 143 S. Ct. 2106, 600 U.S. 66, Pp. 4-14,.216 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2023) require that the Petition be granted. 1. Does Pennsylvania’s allowance of unitary . review require a grant of relief nunc pro tunc . to individuals whose counsel wrongly imposed : a Hobson’s choice to either forfeit : representation entirely or accept a false ; mutual exclusivity of direct appeal and post ; conviction relief issues? . Suggested Answer: Yes I ' ; ‘ : ii : . QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued : 2. Does Pennsylvania’s bold rejection of the “good faith exception to the exclusionary rule” require a grant of -relief nunc pro tunc to : individuals who were convicted on evidence admissible only under a “good faith exception”? Suggested Answer: Yes 3. Does Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 457, 15S. Ct. 394, 39 L. Ed. 481 (1895) require that relief be granted nunc pro tune to individuals who were convicted in state trials in which the trial court judge removed the presumption of innocence prior to opening : arguments and/or prior to the presentation of . evidence? Suggested Answer: Yes iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued 4, Does the fact that many years after a state sentence was served, police officers gave testimony in federal court proving that the Petitioner was, more probably than not, ; unknowingly and involuntarily intoxicated by carbon monoxide at and around the time of events for which he was found culpable entitle : . . him to relief nunc pro tunc? ; Suggested Answer: Yes 5. Are individuals entitled to relief nunc pro tunc , from true threats convictions on the grounds that the alleged victims and the state willfully . forfeit their previous claim of a “true threat” if it is later discovered that law enforcement officers and the alleged victims intentionally waited until after four day weekends, holidays : and several months had passed prior to : initiating criminal action? Suggested Answer: Yes : . iv : QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued 6. Does the fact that the U.S. Senate’s finding in the Trump II impeachment proceedings that the speech used by President Trump during January 2020 is constitutionally protected require the grant of relief nunc pro tunc to the Petitioner because the Senate’s constitutional and statutory findings regarding alleged “true threats” are both precedential and binding on the judiciary? Suggested Answer: Yes 7. Is the Petitioner entitled to relief nunc pro tunc on the grounds that Pennsylvania failed to show that the alleged “true threat” in the case below met the standard of “recklessness” defined by Counterman v. Colorado, 143 S. Ct. 2106, 600 U.S. 66, Pp. 4-14, 216 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2023)? Suggested Answer: Yes