1. Whether the introduction of speculative lay
opinion by a law enforcement officer, asserting a staged
robbery without personal knowledge or expertise,
violates the petitioner 's rights under the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments, and contravenes evidentiary limi
tations under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 and this
Court 's rulings in United States v. Anderskow and
Daubert v. Merrell Dow.

2. Whether the government 's use of testimonial
hearsay in the form of narrative recitations by law
enforcement agents —despite judicial rulings excluding
the co-defendant 's statements —violates the Confron
tation Clause of the Sixth Amendment as articulated
in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

3. Whether a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1035
(a)(2) for a false healthcare-related statement can stand
absent evidence of material falsity, where treatment
was in fact rendered, and no witness refuted the
legitimacy of the petitioner 's medical need.

Whether the introduction of speculative lay opinion by a law enforcement officer violates the petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and evidentiary limitations under Federal Rule of Evidence 701