QUESTION ONE: THIS COURT HAS LONG HELD THAT FOR A JUDGE TO
THREATEN A DEFENSE WITNESS WITH PERJURY IF HE TESTIFIES FOR THE
DEFENSE VIOLATES THE DEFENDANTS RIGHTS TO PRESENT A DEFENSE,
TO COMPULSORY PROCESS, AND A FAIR TRIAL. THIS CASE PRESENTS THE
COURT WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE FOR THE FIRST TIME
WHETHER THAT SAME RULE SHOULD APPLY TO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS?

QUESTION TWO: WHETHER A DEFENDANT IS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL
WHEN HIS CODEFENDANTS LAWYER IS ALSO SURREPTITIOUSLY
REPRESENTING THE VICTIM, CREATING A JOINT MONETARY MOTIVE
BETWEEN THE CONFLICTED LAWYER AND HIS TWO CLIENTS TO PROVIDE
FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST HIM?

QUESTION THREE: AN ISSUE NOT ADDRESSED IN GAMBLE V. U.S. IS
WHETHER THE "DUAL SOVEREINTY DOCTRINE" SHOULD APPLY TO THE
LONG-TERM CONCERTED ACTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES
TO PROSECUTE AN INDIVIDUAL IN FEDERAL COURT FOR VIOLATING THE
VERY SAME STATE CRIMINAL STATUTES FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT
HAS ALREADY BEEN PUNISHED IN REPEATED STATE COURT
PROCEDINGS? THIS CASE PRESENT THE COURT WITH THAT
OPPORTUNITY.

whether-federal-prosecutors-can-threaten-defense-witnesses