Whether the federal court of appeals correctly found that the determination of whether a state adjudication qualifies as a prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. §2251(e) is a federal question rather than dependent on state law

question presented is: Whether the federal court of appeals below correctly found that the determination of whether a state adjudication qualifies as a prior conviction under the statutory language of 18 U.S.C. §2251(e), “one prior conviction . . . under the laws of any State,” to enhance the punishment for the offense of sexual exploitation of children is a federal question rather than dependent on the law of the state where the adjudication occurred, in the context of the court below holding a prior Michigan adjudication is an eligible enhancement conviction despite state statutory and decisional law expressly stating that specific adjudication is not a conviction. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an evidentiary harpoon injected into Petitioner’s trial by an experienced and well trained law enforcement agent, via an unresponsive blurt to the prosecutor’s question, to undermine the known defense theory of the case, despite the parties’ agreement that such information would not be introduced, did not warrant any curative relief beyond an admonition. Accordingly, the second question presented is: Whether the federal court of appeals below correctly held that the experienced -i Homeland Security Investigation Special Agent, who was present throughout the trial proceedings at the prosecution’s table, heard the defense theory of the case espoused in the defense opening statement, knew that the parties had agreed not to discuss polygraph examinations during the trial, and blurted out in an unresponsive answer that the three men identified by the defense as potential perpetrators of the charged offenses had offered to take lie detector tests, was entitled to no more curative relief than a jury admonition to remedy the evidentiary harpoon injected into the trial. -ii