Does the Confrontation Clause permit the introduction of testimonial identification statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Confrontation Clause permit the prosecution to introduce testimonial identification statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements? 2. Whether petitioner’s right to a fair trial denied to him by the prosecution’s flagrantly irrelevant and inflammatory summation to the jury, when the misconduct was (i) repeated and persistent, (ii) intentional, (iii) unremedied by a curative instruction from the court, even though counsel made no objection, (iv) unprovoked by defense counsel? 3. Whether petitioner was deprived the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitutional, when counsel sat idly and let the prosecution/court violate petitioner’s Constitutional right to a fair? 4. Did Appellate counsel deprive petitioner meaningful representation when, she omitted in her Appeal Brief that, petitioner’s Constitutional Statutory right to a Speedy trial had been violated? 5. Did Appellate counsel deprive petitioner meaningful representation when, she omitted trial counsel’s ineffectiveness of failure to protect the right of petitioner, through the court allowing surrogate testimony to the prosecutions DNA identification evidence, of reports and conclusion of a nontestifying analyst work? 6. Did Appellate counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness when, she omitted in her appeal brief, trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutions improper inflammatory remarks during summation? i