After a colorable attack was made to the government's case-in-chief evidence, an audio forensics expert was provided to the petitioner, causing the government to raise presumption of regularity. But the expert was unable to conduct forensics analysis due to the government's handling of the evidence. Does this make the petitioner's rebuttable presumption, irrebuttable in favor of the government, denying a fair trial?

2. As a matter of law, were the petitioner's communications a proscribable true threat under 18 USC § 115 and First Amendment?

3. With the Elonis case as guidance, were the jury instructions proper with regards to subjective jury intent for 18 USC § 115?

Whether the jury instructions on subjective intent for 18 USC § 875(c) were proper in light of the Elonis case