Has the accused's right of confrontation been converted from the prosecutor's duty under Confrontation Clause into the accused's privilege under the Compulsory Process Clause. Shifts the consequences of adverse - witness no-show from the State to the accused?

QUESTION PRESENTED _ The District of Idaho Court acknowledge that Petitioner’s Confrontation Clause right is at issue. Petitioner was convicted, in large part, upon evidence that the prosecution used of co-defendant’s out-of-court statement, guilty plea and video recording that denied him the opportunity to cross-examine co-defendant. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho has decided an important question of federal law that has not been but should be, settled by this Court, and has decided an ‘important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of other Appeal Courts and this Court. The case thus presents the following questions. I. Has the accused’s right of confrontation been converted from the prosecutor’s duty under Confrontation Clause into the accused’s privilege under the Compulsory Process Clause. Shifts the consequences of adverse — witness noshow from the State to the accused? I. When, the prosecutor used co-defendant’s video statement at crash scene to prove the, motivation for the crime. Is it a violation of the Confrontation Clause, not to provide co-defendant for cross-examination? , II]. When, counsel stipulated to admission of co-defendant’s guilty plea without defendant allowed the opportunity to cross-examine. Should plain error or harmless error analysis be conducted? IV. Did counsel knowingly relinquish or abandon his client’s confrontation clause right when he may have open the door to waiver over his client’s dissent? i