Whether a federal agent's testimony about an out-of-court agent's report of drug trafficking by an unindicted coconspirator violates the Confrontation Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Isa federal agent’s testimony about an out-of-court agent’s report of drug trafficking by an unindicted coconspirator, when linked to and used against the defendant, a clear violation of the Confrontation Clause because it goes to the truth of the matter asserted? See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 (2004). 2. Does the Fifth Circuit’s justification for the admission of an out-of-court agent’s statements about drug trafficking by an unindicted coconspirator as merely an explanation of why an agent took investigatory steps abrogate a defendant’s confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment? See United States v. Silva, 380 F.3d 1018, 1020 (7th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662, 676, 679 (6th Cir. 2004). 3. When a prosecutor improperly bolsters the testimony of cooperating witnesses — who are the only witnesses with knowledge who claim the defendant was involved in the offense — by portraying to the jury that the prosecutor and the judge believe that the cooperating witnesses are truthful, does the improper bolstering affect the defendant’s substantial rights? 4. Does improper expert testimony by a federal agent that the defendant is the wholesaler and distributor in a drug trafficking organization and fits the profile of a drug trafficker affect the defendant’s substantial rights when the only witnesses with knowledge of the offense who implicate the defendant in the offense are cooperating drug trafficking witnesses who are receiving a benefit from their plea agreements and whose credibility has been improperly bolstered? 1