question, it fairly can be asked whether an appellate court properly may find an error to be “plain” in the same case in which it first declares the change in the law that enables it to find error at all. We think a finding that the error is “plain,” or obvious, is as mandatory in these circumstances as it was in Johnson. The rationale of Johnson — that a defendant should not be required to raise “useless” objections at trial in order to benefit on appeal from a post-trial reversal of settled law, see 520 U.S. at 468, 1 e is plain at this time, and that the second prong of the plain error test therefore is satisfied. C. Did the Unconstitutional Admission of the Chemist’s Report Affect Appellant’s Substantial Rights? In order to show that the nonstruetural error in this cas Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The third prong of the test for plain error
holding that defendants substantial rights were affected by unconstitutional admission of outofcourt testimonial statements that established elements of the charged offenses holding that a defendants statements regarding offenses for which he had not been charged were admissible notwithstanding the attachment of his sixth amendment right to counsel on other charged offenses holding that when defendants plead not guilty the government is required to prove all elements of charged offenses including intent holding that when declarant is unavailable outofcourt statements that are testimonial are inadmissible even if they meet an exception to the hearsay rules holding that the admission of an accomplices outofcourt confession violated the petitioners confrontation clause rights