Why he es REE eee, IT 5' CLERKS,

THE TRIAL AM) APPEALS Courr? FoR Fails TD REVIEW An
HERR Loweh Contr s DECISISNS PEL, Wuse 12.94, 1257 ,
ACCORDING TE TRipt Mie RPLLS Cou wy Come" inJT tutta
LEAs, Wey Wow lan'r M+ Lats MISS GI Rene oe ae
me For To Glue ORAL TES HOR, fob wlan v St tadut,200
WW> ER arly (2H, " ROBINS Compra [) SOMEWHAT DIFF CLT T
VE CPRER) a \ OB\eur TO THe evr as Qeerdion jEMECALY THE |
Lose PrPAG RAP. Alico, | Muse OBJECT Efghy GM oe W.
pecslav Thar (VE NER RECENED pecaust HEY RAE Aumay)
Sitago BY Chand Heouer jeer THE Cer Jubess ,

Wiy Didnt THE TEAL fro ACorak Cover GWE ME & CoPy oF THE

ORIbinsiL Compute We | AED foe IT, SO | Could Ger Ksu?
oie it ¢ wit wrs NO FoRma oN THE Racor) Herve 7
HELO IN Thy 0 Any oF MY CWIL Carey @ofon' DIY SSAK,
WHY awe My RALE OAT ONS PGA vor Of. Justices) iE AES )
OFILIMS bEe0) (G00. | Nor AEA) wor UES eRTEO, NDT
Prosetuter? WHy WAS | pssaureD by FOF C. Jine Sime Pute de
h eafhie So? 7 why wan | RePenTeD IT TP Ciner Comet)
HE SED, Nag wits EVER You WANT, I WA Die FRI. 42 |
Why DID Cwrettoen Awd Tenens Couniies Violate oks.
2305. 4 ) Avo be lev! £0.19 CONN wut TOT? Dart Z
mone APP OW ISvas Aur INZRD TO?
Zh usc LOT Atbewe LRM, Dobe Quedraon :

Whether the trial and appeals courts erred in failing to review and correct their lower court's decisions