Whether voluminous amounts of substantive evidence containing prejudicial opinions of government agents held to be erroneously admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 by the Fourth Circuit violated Petitioner's right to a fair trial, or alternatively the confrontation clause, under the Sixth Amendment, thus triggering the Chapman standard of review, placing the burden on the Government to show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented is: Whether voluminous amounts of substantive evidence containing prejudicial opinions of government agents held to be erroneously admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 by the Fourth Circuit violated Petitioner’s right to a fair trial, or alternatively the confrontation clause, under the Sixth Amendment, thus triggering the Chapman standard of review, placing the burden on the Government to show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.