Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a level of presumed prejudice and does not require a showing of prejudice as required under Strickland; it imposes the lesser burden of having to prove some adverse impact. 4 . In Dixson v. Quarles, 627 F.Supp. 50 (E.D.Mich.1985), the district court utilized this standard. On appeal, this court approved the district court’s holding and analysis under that standard. Dixson v. Quarles, 781 F.2d 534 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 411, 93 L.Ed.2d 362 (1986). 5 . Assistant Prosecutor Schigur testified at the magistrate’s evidentiary hearing that he would have considered accepting a plea from a single defendant under those conditions. 6 . But see Baty v. Balkcom, 661 F.2d 391, 396-97 (Former 5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2307, 73 L.Ed.2d 1308 (1982) (<HOLDING>). This holding of Baty has since been 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing conflict (B) recognizing the conflict (C) holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed (D) holding that to demonstrate that a conflict of interest violated his sixth amendment rights a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance (E) holding that habeas petitioner need not demonstrate adverse effect on representation but need only prove an actual conflict to justify habeas relief on account of a conflict of interest
Output (English): holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed