Whether Petitioner's constitutional right to confrontation was violated

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Petitioner’s constitutional right to confrontation was violated when, during his criminal jury trial, the district court restricted cross examination in a way that prevented the jury from learning and considering how the observations and perceptions of essential government witnesses may have been affected by the intoxicated state of those witnesses at the time they made their observations, their prolonged history of drug abuse for years thereafter, and the fact these key witnesses were under the influence of methamphetamine the day before they relayed their direct testimony to the jury. 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit’s rejection of the legal underpinnings of the government’s theory of prosecution at trial and the district court’s erroneous application of the temporal limits of a carjacking rendered it impossible to determine whether Petitioner was convicted by a unanimous jury in violation of Petitioner's constitutional rights to a unanimous jury and a fair trial. i