Whether the right to a de novo review demands the reversal of conviction once the images disappear from the record post-conviction if the verbiage in the record is objectively less explicit than that of Osborne v. Ohio

No question identified. : Questions 1. Concerning a violation of KSA 21-3516a(2), given that the images’ nature was reasonably disputed, does the right to a de novo review demand the reversal of conviction once the images disappear from the record post-conviction if the verbiage in the record is objectively less explicit than that of Osborne v. Ohio? 2. Given that a COA was granted on First Amendment grounds, was the Tenth Circuit correct to disassociate scienter from the First Amendment? 3. ISKSA 21-3516a(2) (now KSA 21-5510a(2)) unconstitutional for lack of a de facto scienter requirement, in general or as applied to the petitioner?