Did the court of appeals err in applying the guilt-based approach, rather than the error-based approach, to assess the harmlessness of the confrontation error in petitioner's case; and should the Court grant certiorari in this case both to clarify that the error-based approach is the correct approach and to elucidate how that sort of harmlessness review should proceed?

question presented is: Did the court of appeals err in applying the guilt-based approach, rather than the error1. Jason M. Solomon, Causing Constitutional Harm: How Tort Law Can Help Determine Harmless Error in Criminal Trials, 99 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1053, 1062 (2005) (footnotes omitted). u based approach, to assess the harmlessness of the confrontation error in petitioner’s case; and should the Court grant certiorari in this case both to clarify that the error-based approach is the correct approach and to elucidate how that sort of harmlessness review should proceed? II. Under the doctrine of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), must the facts underlying a restitution award be proved to, and found by, a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (and, in federal cases, charged in a grand jury indictment)?