Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the admission of an accuser's statement against a criminal defendant under the guise of 'overview testimony'

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits, under the guise of "overview testimony’, the admission against a criminal defendant a statement by an accuser on the grounds the Confrontation Clause framework established in Crawford V Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2nd 177 (2004) holds the Clause unequivocally prohibits the admission of out-of-court statements without the Right to Confrontation. Specifically when the statement is used to obtain an indictment that upon conviction opens the flood gates to millions of dollars in fraud loss at sentencing under Sentencing Guidelines 2B1.1 at a much lower standard of evidence that no trial jury will ever hear? NM CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Oo i AMENDMENT 6 . ; Rights of the accused. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shalt enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory ‘ process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his defense. x i] JURISDICTION The date on which the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed my conviction was 5 May 2020. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). a IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ISSUE TO REVIEW , PETITION FOR CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. OPINION BELOW The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals in the Third Circuit appears as Exhibit D to the Petition ‘be x “On 23 January 2013, a grand jury sitting in the District of New Jersey returned a forty-four (44) count superseding indictment charging Petitioner and others with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1349 (Count 1), mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 (Counts 2 through 20), wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 (Counts 21 through 34), conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957, 1956(h) (Count 35), money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957(a) (Counts 36 through 39), unemployment compensation benefit fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 (Counts 40 through 42), and wire fraud in relation to unemployment compensation benefit fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 (Counts 43 through 44). Petitioner was named in Counts 1, 18, 20, 32, through 34, and 42. . 5 On 4 September 2013 after an eight week trial, the jury returned a verdict that convicted Petitioner on all Counts. On 22 April 2016 the District Court sentenced Petitiorier to two-hundred-sixteen (216) months imprisonment. On 2 May 2016 Petition filed a timely notice of appeal. On 5 May 2020 in United States v Resnick, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14278 (3rd Cir. 2020) the Court affirmed the judgments of conviction and sentences entered against Petitioner.