Oscar J. Martinez-Hernandez v. United States

I. WHETHER THE ADMISSION OF UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 801(D)(2)(E), WITHOUT INDEPENDENT PROOF OF A CONSPIRACY OR EXTRINSIC CORROBORATION OF THE DECLARANT’S AND DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION, VIOLATED MARTINEZHERNANDEZ’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 REVIEW. II. 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 EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, 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 RESOLUTION. IV. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO PROVE THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS USED “IN FURTHERANCE” OF THE ALLEGED