Does the failure to require a unanimous jury verdict on either charged or uncharged theories of prosecution violate the Sixth Amendment right to a verdict?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The indictment charged possession of a single firearm and related ammunition on a specific date, but at trial, the government presented alternative theories of guilt based on evidence of petitioner’s uncharged possession of other firearms on other occasions. The government presented no evidence of, and the trial court did not instruct the jury on, the knowledge element of a § 922(g) offense; thus the question of whether petitioner knew he was ineligible to possess a firearm was not decided by the jury. The questions presented are: 1. Does the failure to require a unanimous jury verdict on either charged or uncharged theories of prosecution violate the Sixth Amendment right to a verdict under Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999)? 2. Should certiorari be granted and the case remand for reconsideration in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), because the government did not endeavor to make the required showing of petitioner’s knowledge of his prohibited status and the jury was not instructed on the knowledge element? i INTERESTED PARTIES The are no parties interested in the proceeding other than those named in the caption of the appellate decision. ii