The State knew Mr. Lawrence Guydel l Pierre, an admi tted pri ncipal to Ms.
Chateri Payne's murder and an al leged co-conspi rator, woul d invoke hi s Fifth
Amendment ri ghts when "testi fying" before the jury. N onethel ess, the State asked
substanti ve questi ons of Mr. Pi erre at tri al. Thi s also forced Mr. Tre'veon
Demarcus Anderson's and Mr. Gl ynn Fri erson's attorneys to engage i n limited
substanti ve questi oning of Mr. Pi erre.
Mr. Pi erre repeatedl y invoked hi s Fifth Amendment ri ghts i n front of the
jury. Thi s allowed the State to tender questi ons "establ ishing" substanti ve
elements of i ts case through Mr. Pi erre's testi mony, whi ch "testi mony" the State
knew woul d not counter i ts theory of Mr. Anderson's gui lt. Thus, Mr. Anderson's
consti tutional right to confront the wi tnesses agai nst hi m was vi olated. See
Douglas v. Alabama , 380 U .S. 415, 85 S. Ct. 1074, 13 L. Ed. 2d 934 (1965)
This Court shoul d reverse Mr. Anderson's convi ctions, vacate hi s sentences,
and remand thi s matter to the Fi rst Judi cial District Court for further proceedi ngs
consi stent wi th thi s Court's deci sion. U nless thi s Court addresses thi s
consti tutional violation, defendants wi ll be subject to convi ctions based on
"testi mony" from prosecutors who ask l eading questi ons to "prove" thei r case
knowi ng ful l well witnesses wi ll invoke thei r Fifth Amendment ri ghts, al lowing the
prosecutor's "testi mony," whi ch will be immune from cross exami nation. Thi s Court
shoul d grant thi s wri t, correct thi s error, and provi de gui dance for a si tuati on likely
to weaken the Si xth and Fourteenth Amendments absent acti on by thi s Court.

Whether the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the State elicited testimony from a witness who repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, thereby allowing the State to introduce the witness's statements without subjecting them to cross-examination.