1. May a district court force/reinstate pre-trial, a public defender who had been discharged and replaced by movant with new counsel due to her doing no investigation, no interviewing and/or hiring of an expert, and her personal conflict of interest during the same case?

2. May this Court's decision in U.S, v. Gonzalez-Lopez and Christeson v. Roper govern petitioner 's facts as to what constitutes denial of counsel of choice?

3. May this Court's decision in Cuyler v. Sullivan , Holloway v. Arkansas , and Mickels v. Taylor constitute ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's actions of no investigation, personal conflict of interest (due to medical condition stated on record), no expert, and misrepresentation of viewing of evidence?

Whether a district court may reinstate a discharged public defender against a defendant's wishes and whether such reinstatement, combined with counsel's failure to investigate, failure to retain experts, and personal conflicts of interest, constitutes denial of the right to counsel of choice and ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment