Whether the trial court's failure to allow the defendant to present evidence and argument that was crucial to her defense violated her constitutional rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED [DE WOuld Vike to, Knard why Om T itaccarcreed ond damied rehiae Som Onbeisive BRAY On Her, Seeine aN Ey MS Coos tional OGhAS Mer Q) Sos \b RaLorobkin Je? | | 40 Triad Couck's So (ure, to aoe see unset to (ot Spyeck to Kevidarnee, WAS Ao Sele Ukense, acy, They Murcdec BY WS vt redgonable Lor +a . . OrGument thot Was ure oe ase 2 foil To Coieeck to Stoke RhpLt De IAOtY during CUesing Orsumert be WNPCOParlY (Asrrredk 0 har Conskrtuct ona, S Comment test) ony On C ae ca SOON. Mowing Rights? Molt 40 Slencg, Over Orrest Sad rods Kee) Sina oe Rasondste Looe ial Counsel 4 ait to clog’ IN Of bra, Ure Shy Mee GOAHEF the IS Ataioed JS a cae RUHR does KF feasonat he fe ne fosng Viena CHa ves vluce, th | OF WIA Counsel to Not of . Mood Seo eee thot Slo hos ® pater BAe A tr WL Courts Lon Gu TAL REY VOOR SA UNdwer Post beanuumakye Shoes da. 0 . “1D LOGS We eeosorable, Roe eval Couns kaye ” fo Skeppoct Qpelcmnts WAYS.) To Larnhold Gay evidence, | . | | eR . . |