Whether a defendant must show actual prejudice or can rely on a presumption of prejudice when some, but not all, attorneys in a multi-attorney representation are conflicted, and whether trial counsel's failure to properly present a withdrawal defense should be analyzed under Cronic or Strickland

The criminally accused is guaranteed the right to conflict-free, effective counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Given that right, the following questions arise: 1. To show a violation of the right to conflict-free counsel when represented by multiple attorneys, only some of whom are conflicted, must a defendant show actual prejudice under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), or does the presumption of prejudice set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan , 446 U.S. 335 (1980), apply? 2. Where trial counsel completely misunderstood how to present a withdrawal defense and failed to present affirmative acts of withdrawal as required by Smith v. United States , 568 U.S. 106 (2013), should his conduct have been analyzed under the standard in United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 (1984), instead of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984)?