Whether the district court violated Kastan's right to testify and the subsequent prosecutor's comments, 'The defendants don't like answering questions,' of the Kastan testified for more than a day and was compelled to withdraw his testimony by conceding in front of the jury that 'Kastan was refusing to answer questions,' in violation of the Court's opinion in Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) and Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED T. Whethen the disknick court violated Kadtan's Hight To teatity and the subsequent prosecutor's Comments, “There defendants don't Wke answering ayrestions +.» you knew thot Fromees your observations, " of tex Kastan testified fon mone Mhan a day and was comcd to witkdaaus hia testimony by Conceding ty front of We Jey that ‘Kasten vw refusing Te answer qeustion,,’ tA net notunally ond Necrsanily Commenting on Karton's silence. The Court below enred in confide uth Urn Court's Opinion in Rock vAnkansas, 483 US 44¢-(1987) and Gniffin y. California , 380 US. 609 (19165)Tl. Whelkexn the mechanistic exckusion of exculpatory evidena of ‘Sting! Calls te prospective nannies, where Karton nepeatedly wWoxned about the dif Ficubly of the jeb, the long on-call hours and the chenes —the evidene Lhat cartral te Me claim of innocence Jor Conapinacy forced Labor and Fraud counh ~ deprived Barat and koollan's basic right bo present ao defense th conflick: with thes Cow's opinion in Crane v. Kentincky 0% S-ck 2442 (1486). And whos Fhe admikbance of hearsay testimony te non-hesket jing Nanny , wm combination, . deprived Banal and Kattan o fair bxial in conflicd with Thu Cour > opinion Chambers vy. Misscastppi , 13 S-ck1038 (1973). TH. whether the four disjanctively Abudexcd subsections of the forced Labor Atolute ; 8 USC § 15 89a), Ahe elements Ok Meas. Wilh out Fubly conridouing the breadth of the Atolls iffenoné mew neo peguirenssits , different degsreen of colpabs but, (violent and nenweolant nature > Commercial and domestic Aounte), diffexat proof and conduct reguinemenh , the Core Case explicihy nofenrcng the individual subsection ar ‘clement’ and the Care los neferring o pasdiculor Aubrection(s) to the exclusion of othw, Me court beleo exned ,on thn sasue of Prat impreArion , in eencluding thet the ablerndkves are means , 0A conflick vith HRY Cowd's opinion in Mottin v. United Stokes $79 US. 518 (2016). TW. Whether the combined effect of at Laait eight sevour buial ewrors may Yve rise te duc process violation iP ik renders atbsdal fundamentally unfarr, even where each ennor considered individually would net require nevertal The coud below did net rule on the Cumulative Exrcet asgument nataed by Baal quid , (ee) : Kanter. Boral and Kotlan reminded the count below thot ct did net sale on the cumubobive Enron argument , th O prehearing palikon, which war summarily dented in cenflick with tha cows opinion th Donnelly v Dechustofore 416 UsS637 (1174), Chambon v. Miasiasippr , 410 US: 284 (1973), Knulewiteh v: United States, 336 US: 440 (1944), and Brecht v. Abxahmsen 507 u-S619 (1993), MZ. whether an employee, Thapa, a US neaident wilh a Working Cal phone and with Friends and tomily an hour Owasy , who warks tor an employer (Kastan) For 2 days and claims thot during hex eqnead, the employex repeatedly asted her te qet out but also claims thet empleyex Hneatened te call tre police can claim hakf an hour of foncad Labor. Ve. Whether an employer can violate forced Labor Atottiite Pf the free voell ef the emplsyee To quik and work for another employer war net overcome. the cowed belew euned , wilhout bh Ceuntls guidance fox mone lhan free decades, Alner tks N49 decinton in United Stata vi kozminakl 487 U-S43).TVPA expanded his Counts holding in Kozminaki fo éinelude psychological ceancien but ib did Mol disturb thy Courts holding ty Kezminaki Meal an employer's fireo will te quit and work for another empleyer har to overcome te eonrider that Laber as involuntary Consistent with Mr Comd's concern bn Kozminski about the oxbibrary, intenpretabion of paychelogical coercion, variews cows are conflicted in theinx inkexprefaben and approach with the forced Labor Abels , Fedenabizing Local emphoyee-empboyr squabbles inte forced Labor violations. Vii. Whether the cout below cerned in presuming the qresshy extensive 1@Year Sentence each, impesed on anal cind Keston » extending the Aentence imposed in alk othex forced labor cases thot axe