Because it impacts upon the very structure of
the trial, should a finding of absolute harmlessness,
rather than harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt,
be required where the Court committed an
intentional and egregious Sixth Amendment violation
by terminating defense counsel's cross-examination of
the government's sole cooperating witness in the
middle of an extended answer that the court
concluded would jeopardize the prosecution's theory,
yet falsely suggesting to the jury that the
examination was being stopped due to some
impropriety of counsel, and should that be the rule,
notwithstanding a prosecutorial offer to make such
witness later available on the defense's case-in-chief?

Should a finding of absolute harmlessness be required for an intentional and egregious Sixth Amendment violation?