Whether Juan Rivera-George was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury

Questions presented: 1. Whether Juan Rivera-George (“Juan”) was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury when the District Court failed to conduct an inquiry on the jurors, after receiving a jury note showing that the jurors felt afraid of Juan and his relatives, that came as a result of the jurors’ repeated observations of Juan, while restrained under handcuffs and heavily escorted by US Marshalls Service agents inside the courthouse, which gave the impression to the jurors that Juan was dangerous and guilty. 2. Whether Juan was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and to be tried by an impartial jury when the District Court failed to dismiss a juror who engaged in interpersonal relations with the prosecution witnesses before and during the trial. 3. Whether Juan was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the District Court denied Juan’s cross-examination of a key prosecution witness aimed at proving that the witness lied on a material issue regarding his in-court identification of Juan. 2 4. Whether Juan was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and to an adequate defense when the District Court denied Juan’s request to present testimonial and documentary evidence to show that a_ key prosecution witness lied during the direct examination to gain credibility before the jury. 5. Whether Juan was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the District Court allowed the prosecution to present documents, that contained prejudicial hearsay, to attempt to rehabilitate the perjured testimony of the two key prosecution witnesses who lied on the stand. 6. Whether Juan was deprived of his Eight Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when, as a first time offender, he was sentenced to a 235-month prison sentence, as a result of an erroneous guideline calculation reached by extrapolating the drug quantity corresponding to a drug point that had no relation to Juan, in the absence of evidence regarding the quantities of sales at the drug point that Juan allegedly operated, and that resulted in direct disparity with other similarly situated co-defendants who received 108-month prison sentences. 3