counsel is competent.” Id. at 918. Before the Rule 29.15 hearing was completed, the defendant was awarded a new trial based on demonstrated juror misconduct. Id. at 915. At the defendant’s second trial, the State introduced, over the defendant’s objection, the defendant’s incriminating testimony from the truncated Rule 29.15 hearing to establish the defendant’s guilt. Id. We acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court had not yet expanded the protection of the Fourth Amendment established in Simmons to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Id. at 917-18. However, we noted that “[t]he Second and Eighth Circuits have extended Simmons protection to certain statements made in the Sixth Amendment context.” Id. at 918 (citing United States v. Branker, 418 F.2d 378, 381 (2nd Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>)); United States v. Anderson, 567 F.2d 839,
holding that a defendant who testified to proceed in forma pauperis could not have that testimony used against him at trial to establish his knowing presentment of false claims as the defendants constitutional rights to counsel are no less important than the constitutional rights to protection against illegal searches and seizure recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify holding trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper argument about defendants exercise of his right to a jury trial and stating that the prosecution cannot use the defendants exercise of specific fundamental constitutional guarantees against him at trial recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights recognizing cause of action against federal officials for violation of constitutional rights