Whether uncorroborated hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) without independent proof of conspiracy violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and creates a circuit split warranting Supreme Court review

ADMISSION OF I. WHETHER UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY UNDER FEDERALTHE RULE OF EVIDENCE 801(D)(2)(E), WITHOUT INDEPENDENT PROOF OF A CONSPIRACY OR EXTRINSIC DECLARANT ’S PARTICIPATION, HERNANDEZ ’S RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ’S CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, AND WHETHER THE FIRST CIRCUIT ’S DEPARTURE FROM OTHER CIRCUITS IN PERMITTING SUCH EVIDENCE DEEPENS AN EXISTING SPLIT WARRANTING THIS COURT ’S AND VIOLATEDOF THE DEFENDANT ’S MARTINEZII. WHETHER THE FIRST CIRCUIT ’S FAILURE TO APPLY NAPUE V. ILLINOIS AND ITS USE OF HARMLESS ERROR REVIEW TO EXCUSE THE GOVERNMENT ’S KNOWING USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS, CONFLICTED WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AND DEEPENED A CIRCUIT SPLIT WARRANTING SUPREME COURT INTERVENTION. III. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ’S ISSUANCE OF A FALSE SPOLIATION INSTRUCTION REGARDING MATERIAL COMBINED WITH ITS DECISION TO WITHHOLD THE EVIDENCE FROM THE JURY AND DEFER REVIEW TO POST-TRIAL RULE 33 PROCEEDINGS, VIOLATED MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ ’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY AND FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, AND WHETHER THIS JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION IN BRADY AND NAPUE VIOLATIONS PRESENTS A RECURRING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE REQUIRING THIS COURT ’S EXCULPATORY IV. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ’S FAILURE TO PROVE THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS USED “IN FURTHERANCE ” OF THE ALLEGED ii MURDER-FOR-HIRE SCHEME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1958(A) RENDERS MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ ’S CONVICTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND WHETHER THE FIRST CIRCUIT ’S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT ’S COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE AND UNDERMINES THE JURISDICTIONAL SAFEGUARDS REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS. V. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE INDIVIDUAL IT IDENTIFIED AS THE PRIMARY ARCHITECT OF THE MURDERFOR-HIRE SCHEME, WHILE TARGETING PETITIONER BASED ON UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY, AND AMIDST EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTORIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CONSTITUTES A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION ROOTED IN ARBITRARY AND ABUSIVE CHARGING DISCRETION, WARRANTING THIS COURT ’S REVIEW UNDER ITS GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT PRECEDENTS. iii