1. May a state court that reaches and decides an asserted violation of the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial that has not been waived or forfeited under state law nevertheless affirm under a heightened, state-law harm standard because trial counsel did not object, rather than applying Chapman's harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard?

2. Does petitioner's conviction violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because the jury was authorized to convict without being instructed to find every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt?

May a state court that reaches and decides an asserted violation of the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial that has not been waived or forfeited under state law nevertheless affirm under a heightened state-law harm standard because trial counsel did not object, rather than applying Chapman's harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard?