Whether structural constitutional defects in indictments should be reviewed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52's plain error standard or Rule 12's 'good cause' standard when raised for the first time on appeal

I. Whether structural constitutional defects in indictments should be reviewed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52's plain error standard when raised for the first time on appeal, or whether Rule 12's "good cause" standard creates an impermissible procedural bar that forecloses review of fundamental constitutional violations, particularly when defense counsel's ineffective assistance prevented timely challenges. II. Whether the admission of electronic communications as non-hearsay co-conspirator statements and party admissions violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when such evidence effectively substitutes for live witness testimony and creates a modem "trial by affidavit," particularly in light of the constitutional concerns expressed in Franklin v. New York, No. 24-330 (Mar. 24, 2025). III. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1591 's distinct penalty-enhancing provisions with explicit scienter requirements constitute separate elements requiring conjunctive proof when charged together under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), or whether allowing disjunctive jury findings on conjunctively charged penalty-enhancing facts violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.