Question A:
Did the Kansas Court of Appeals err in their analysis of the undisputed violation of a criminal defendant's
Constitutional Due Process Right to be present at a critical stage of the trial, at which the defendant's presence
and participation would have contributed substantially to the fairness and outcome of the proceeding, and therfore
erred in affirming the judgement of the district court?

Question 1:
Was it structural error to deprive a criminal defendant of the Constitutional Due Process Right to be present at a critical
stage of the trial, at which the defendant's presence and participation would have contributed substantially to the fairness
and outcome of the proceeding, when the defendant's absence had a profound effect on the framework w

Question 2:
Did the Kansas Court of Appeals incorrectly perform it's harmless-error analysis of the undisputed
violation of a criminal defendant 's Constitutional Due Process right to be present at a critical stage of the
trial?

Question (a):
Did the Court of Appeals fail to consider all of the statutory language of KS A 22-3402 during
their harmless error analysis?

Question (b):
Did the Court of Appeals inappropriately abandon the precedents established in controlling case
law, without properly providing rational and explination to support such a departure, during
their harmless-error analysis?

Question (c):
Did the Court of Appeals inappropriately engage in burden shifting in their harmless-error
analysis?

Question (d):
Did the Court of Appeals incorrectly deem this undisputed violation of a criminal defendant 's
Constitutional Due Process right to be present at a critical stage of the trial, to be "harmless-
error " when it was, in fact, suffeciently prejudicial to warrant relief?

Question B:
Did the Kansas Court of Appeals violate petitioners Constitutional Right to Equal Protection of Law
when it abandoned the complete plain language and unambiguous legislative intent of the states speedy
trial statute, for the express purpose of denying a criminal defendant warranted relief, in a maner that
is not supported by the established precedents of controlling caselaw?

Did the Kansas Court of Appeals err in their analysis of the undisputed violation of a criminal defendant's Constitutional Due Process right to be present at a critical stage of the trial, at which the defendants presence and participation would have contributed substantially to the fairness and out come of the proceeding, and therefore erred in affirming the judgement of the district court?