Did the Third Circuit err in deferring to the District Court's finding that Mr. Johnson suffered no prejudice from the Confrontation violation that occurred at his trial, when the District court's decision is in conflict with the decision of another United States Court of Appeals on the same important matter?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . OO Mr. Johnson alleged that his right to Confrontation was violated when the trial court permitted a surrogate analyst to parrot the testimonial statements of a non-testifying expert witness. This testimony was the only evidence relied . upon by the state that contradicted Mr. Johnson's self-defense account of the — ; incident. Even so, per this same testimony offered by the state's expert witness, these testimonial statements also supported Mr. Johnson's self-defense claim. ; , In finding no prejudice, the District Court, in large part,. relied on the ; , . testimony of an expert witness offered by Mr. Johnson, which is not in accord — , with applicable decisions of this Court. However in doing so, departed significantly from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, and "decided an unanswered important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisiots of this Court. The case thus presents the following questions. 1. Did the Third Circuit err in deferring to the District Court's finding . . that Mr. Johnson suffered no prejudice from the Confrontation violation that _ occurred at his trial, when the District court's decision is in conflict with the decision of another United States Court of Appeals on the same important matter? . , 7 . ; 2. Did the Third Circuit err in deferring to the District Court's decision to answer an important question of federal law that should be settled by this Court, that is when the District Court found that there is no prejudice suffered as a result of a Confrontation violation where the defense presents . testimony from its' own expert witness? ; ee ; 3. Where the testimonial statements contained in an: autopsy report prepared by a non-testifying expert witness consists of lapses and infirmities, can a resultant Confrontation violation be cured by additional surrogate | testimony offered by the state's expert witness, when the witness had neither 7 performed nor been present during the autopsy in question, and played no role _ in generating the data contained in the autopsy report upon which the expert witness based their opinion?