whether the admission of law enforcement testimony that goes to whether a defendant was a participant in a conspiracy based on information provided by informants who did not testify and which the defendant had no ability to cross examine violates the rule of Crawford.

In a related fashion, this case presents a question regarding the extent to which Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits law enforcement witnesses to offer opinion testimony as to the participation of a defendant in a crime, specifically: whether the government's case agents may give lay opinion testimony as to the essential elements of the charged conspiracy and the defendant's membership therein without providing any foundation beyond generally describing the scope of the investigation, i.e., their use of wiretaps, surveillance and witnesses consistent with Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence?

whether the trial court erred in ordering counsel to refrain from discussing with his client when witnesses would be testifying during an extended period of time during the trial based on the unsubstantiated belief that discussion between trial counsel and Keith Harris regarding the availability of witnesses would hinder the witnesses' testimony?

Whether the admission of law enforcement testimony that goes to whether a defendant was a participant in a conspiracy based on information provided by informants who did not testify and which the defendant had no ability to cross examine violates the rule of Crawford