Whether juries must unanimously agree on the actus reus element of offenses

question presented is: Whether juries must unanimously agree on the actus reus element of offenses as a step preliminary to determining if a defendant is guilty of a charged crime. 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2261A is unconstitutionally overbroad, and as applied, so that its application violates the standards announced in Elonis v. United States, 135 8.Ct. 2001 (2015), United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000), Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997), Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56, (1988), Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708(1969), and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)? 3. Whether a person can be convicted for stalking resulting in death based on jury instructions that blended two causation theories, and did not require the jury to find or agree on the scope of the person’s actions or predicate conduct. 4, Whether the admissibility of a civil judicial opinion containing derogatory findings and assessments of the defendant’s character, mental state, and motivations unfairly prejudices a defendant in a criminal prosecution involving jury findings on the same issues. 5. Whether sentencing courts may continue to violate the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, by imposing sentences that, but for judge-found facts, would be substantively unreasonable. i 6. Whether Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) and Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 61, (1987) require admission of polygraph results in the defense case-inchief to rebut admission of polygraph evidence in the government’s case-in-chief. ii