Whether the lower court's interpretation of the constitutional provisions regarding due process and trial rights comports with established legal precedent

FM&FS oiygR EycamM dp p/oee> iM0fA<£ df the &(/TAy 77V£ CowAMM) uMgsS dHEjdOsAs?yews dUPja / RtE/TE faftOt&T XfWCcJ OF rfy OEAiRE OF C&PA/5FL -pftg <0^X/tfcw^bM' 0f FHtf u*t codfrillAflW^ £ /5 /T /? ^aJ//IL df/?Frf/F TRIAL B^Tu/Zy /lA^F^^py-^ MM TM1^FJF^ep fr^/eTMd Mb HAM9 ii/AlTfPA) 7^)GPS PoeKFF tPo^/FF cp/77? FPt &F a)C£ &F/& rfM? F\ swDW Mrs FrioA. fto Fi/^y oeUR fARfiMs 7 3r IS IT fMMwWT'A ^cy FaJfAJA RaJO W (Mia/rmCT lAltf fa}oA EuRrE/TIP CpAtr AAFCW iOT 71> RllobJ a goaJA&7)^T^ sipM> that i^ Hm BysF/7 M AkrtJVRy sfAqAAA tioA<&F~ AfRtoAY AaJ77 tAWA erF/) OodEAtbiFiAy^ F€)CU^EF/FE /AA/A/f\Fr FAw OFFICIAL 4 oiO TH£ Low?A cou/^rf /w/WcV A&yFAJA/iF tyAoA S^AWM) s 7FAT ojFA/ liM WFF&te^y AM simuW rrru/^^ /a/i^oualg,mJw/c aaaucaats c^^nr^oA^L. A(^ t 70 AtyAW trig Ar, pb£/z&<&ty /m& FQ'Ofit' FA®76 c7°^ <$F Ttt& Lfityf S//€ b/THty Tty ccrfFcAW> AAoc, /MT AA°7 f£C7)ort/ 3(b) f. /ij\& oA Tty7> /FA A/oC> Au<A 7^ 2 Cd) t^c^rjrcjrM^ Ac /> A/Fcis# To A//LICFAT /UP j/Wli-MU/ F/T^tyty? U-T Cotyp(eTEP/P TTAty P^fAFd&S &F L/A TFT /<!& &F7H& ^5. c^TI7UT^A^ C o\o rw~ bo\A)Efi CoO/TZ //AW THFFAoFfA A FAAoA STFAa/IA/ Tb Trit AA^ZOT oAZ W> coa/fVcT FFA/A G TA/A L iFFr CtJ(eA /) &}/ TAl/L A&cFs 5 oF A^AC/ cA/JT 777^ U> y Ofp Tf-fc LouJCaZ COUNTS fH£ /%)# (?? 7ftt ify&rvoicML co^-rir^n^L w rne 7A^&^G€$ a?m/J6s ^Ar eedw/iFA7A/Mtf 0U£ /frocks /WHOM Tis i7 c0M&r)'i\Jr}0^ ?