Here’s a link to the SG’s brief in opposition to the cert petition in Smith v. United States, No. 10-18. Interestingly, the SG argues that there is “no conflict among the circuits that warrants further review of petitioner’s case.” Smtih BIO at 10. The SG continues, “This Court has recently denied certiorari on the question presented, Larson v. United States, 552 U.S. 1260 (2008), and should do so again here.” Id.; see also id. at 14-18.
Here’s the QP from the cert petition:
When a trial judge’s restriction on the cross-examination of a prosecution witness is challenged on appeal as a violation of the Confrontation Clause, is the standard of review de novo, as five circuits have held, or abuse of discretion, as six other circuits (and the court of appeals here) have concluded?
And here’s the QP as presented by the SG:
Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces applied the correct standard of review to petitioner’s claim that the military judge’s limitation on the cross-examination of a government witness violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.