Does a prosecutor's in-court lie to secure a witness's testimony constitute misconduct that materially prejudices an accused's' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or other substantial right?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner was tried before a general court-martial for, inter alia, sexually abusing his autistic son. During the son’s live remote testimony, he expressed concerns over testifying against his father. The prosecutor responded—without objection—by falsely stating that Petitioner was not then present in the courtroom. On appeal, Petitioner alleged the prosecutor’s lie constituted misconduct that prejudiced his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Reviewing the issue for plain error, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) found the matter to be one of first impression, in that no court has held that the Sixth Amendment requires a child testifying remotely to be aware that the defendant is viewing their testimony. Consequently, the CAAF found no plain or obvious error. The CAAF never addressed prejudice nor prosecutorial misconduct. The Question Presented is: Does a prosecutor’s in-court lie to secure a witness’s testimony constitute misconduct that materially prejudices an accused’s’ Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or other substantial right? i