THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED WAS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THREE JUDGE PANEL, MADE A PRECEDENTIAL DECISION, THAT THE PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDMENT CONFRONTATION RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, BUT HE FAILED TO ESTABLISH PREJUDICE UNDER STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON; AND PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW A SUBSTANTIAL AND INJURIOUS EFFECT OR INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THE JURY'S VERDICT.

WHETHER THE THIRD CIRCUIT'S PRECEDENTIAL DECISION CREATED A CONFLICT AMONG ITS CONFLICTING DECISION IN BEY V. SUPERINTENDENT GREENE, SCI 856 F3D 230; 244 (3RD 2017), HOLDING A COMPLETE DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR STRICKLAND PREJUDICE, BY HOLDING "THE PREJUDICE STANDARD" IS NOT A STRINGENT ONE "AND IS" LESS DEMANDING THAT THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD.

THE THIRD CIRCUIT'S DECISION ALONG WITH THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION IN DETRICH V. RYAN, 740 F.3D 1237, 1246 (9TH CIRCUIT 2013) CREATES A CONFUSED GUIDELINE FOR LITIGANTS WHO STRUGGLED WITH THE CONNECTION OF PREJUDICE IN THE REVIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM, UNDER THE SECOND PRONG UNDER STRICKLAND, AND DOES THE TWO DIFFERENT ANALYSIS CALL FOR THE REVIEW TO SEPARATE THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE FROM, THE SECOND PRONG PREJUDICE ASSESSMENT, FROM THE ADDITIONAL, SUBSTANTIAL AND INJURIOUS EFFECT OR INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THE JURY'S VERDICT.

THE THIRD CIRCUIT'S PRECEDENTIAL DECISION IS A UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF THIS COURT'S FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS, AND ADDS A SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CRITERION TO THE PREJUDICE AND HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE. CHAPMAN V. CALIFORNIA,

THIS COURT SHOULD TAKE THIS CASE TO CLEARLY SOLVE THE DIVERSE OPINIONS FROM ACROSS THE NATION IN THE ABOVE AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RELATING TO CONFRONTATION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND THE RIGHT FOR A JURY TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF HOW WITNESSES TESTIMONY IS ASSESSED..

SHOULD PETITIONERS LITIGATION ACROSS THE NATION BE COMPROMISED DO TO CIRCUIT COURTS MISREADING THE RECORD TO OVERCOME A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, AND SHOULD PETITIONERS ACROSS THE NATION BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRORS COMMITTED BY CIRCUIT COURTS WHEN PETITIONERS SHOWS DILIGENCE AND CAN SHOW CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.

Whether the Third Circuit's precedential decision created a conflict among its conflicting decision in Bey v. Superintendent Greene, SCI 856 F3d 230; 244 (3rd 2017), holding a different standard for Strickland prejudice