Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in treating the case as subject to harmless error analysis when the error was structural in nature

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED LN a cose, where the judges Jaw clerW nad previously served as an intern? for Sho LS, Atorweys 0ftice froseealig Yne case Gud had worthed any the, Cae, id the D.L. Cowrk of bi aay by treating She Cos lure, te reense a6 Subyeck to harmless error analy 5, When thé exrot” if foillNg 40 coouse was STRUCTURAL, “IN NATURE? or plain Error 2 | Mag amr. qhvers sights por Executive, Order 13107 06 December (0,148, (3 ; Fes Dry Trglanontaka of human Rpts Treohes Vielobed 2 , , Wh Obstruction oF ashe, 3.0 of aboot juve 7/0018 425 Me. Glover Orie wi \ ig Voie, Tudkchenay? And € so Wad oy wosn't Wer@ 0 Stalag Weariny On Sager ceding ‘re Taio, 4 Was Mr cloves preudica vine tha cours, maki A appear nak case* Sno cet orgy. og hiCeed rales aly Ww, Bectuu? wok deck the shad oN Font oF jrocs) vy wes Were a viol Me Glovers Sith Attond right’s vthend a usilekss on TANG wag, Summons tp Appear back ja cowe} Yo testify ede (Government's Exe 9q) —B. Wes He opaien of Sho Appesiahe Coach wring far sick socinig She: strackaval Bere AW Secor ONSWer Sexy 4 he could uP ite Va ai inshraceions wchadian Final deliprakions? lo Mas There @ Coustord valahon in Ys case? tour %, Died the Sgoriod Err by reling a State criminal egge into & Federal case hecawsa of Ye Crawford violedion 0