Whether the Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated by allowing the sole witness to testify in a niqab

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder based largely on the testimony of the sole witness to the killing, who placed Petitioner at the scene of the crime. While testifying at trial, the government’s witness wore a niqab, a religious garment that covers the entire body and face except for the wearer’s eyes. Petitioner’s counsel did not object that the witness’s garb violated the Confrontation Clause, and the trial court allowed the testimony. Both the trial court and the D.C. Court of Appeals subsequently denied Petitioner’s arguments that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated, in part based on “religious concerns” related to the witness’s supposed First Amendment right to wear a religious garment while testifying. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, in a murder trial where a defendant’s liberty interests at stake, allowing the only testifying witness present at the scene of the killing to testify in a niqab impermissibly hindered Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at trial, and thus constituted plain error. 2. Whether Petitioner did not receive effective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial, when, given the readily apparent violation of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, trial counsel failed to object to the testimony, both in advance and at the time it was presented.