6th-amendment-confrontation,due-process,speedy-trial-act,6th-amendment,daubert,dna-evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari to consider whether Green’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by the procedures utilized by the trial court in deciding whether there had been improper information presented to the grand jury prior to his indictment in this case? 2. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari to consider whether the evidence in support of his conviction for possession of a firearm was an obliterated serial number was so insufficient as to constitute a violation of his right to due process of law? 3. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari to consider whether Green’s rights under the Speedy Trial Act and/or the Sixth Amendment were violated when the Court dismissed the charges against him on July 19, 2019 and July 19, 2020 for violations of the Speedy Trial Act, but did so without prejudice to the right of the United States to refile the charges against him. 4. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari to consider whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the statistical DNA testimony of Ut N. Dinh in violation of the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrel Dow, 569, U.S 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). ii