j POi> Lcfr-Zj
'.lu»«e,>«Wt.»<.>J)*s U> (WlfVJi jrwiKsL K
1a^pSpaja.r-atJ stMftf
^VvVs f&r &®cuV W£, OrAef QWH ^9 Berber Pj^,fc3
Eei.Pi^*WW of Wn»^ Iherfies v;©\okA?
S.O ki «r aWVjitfe. 7,90\« "»S Wr.6W «W^ wAV j. ,«
/W tf so Wwstit AVaffc a sWto& Wr<ig otf Sa^fcediwc) AW3W«M:<
4 ^ *w4U H-'«#M*r -VWV «se*$M7c« ,$»,
Wr.6&rW wwer^-ik sWii Vj fmAtZurofi'
S.VlteAta<*A' wf**j £>r ^^ sWWM emf
1W %<or % S ftN&ui&f Scui^Mj W C$a\^ $a\\c>y>} -AW (j^S-W^Vibw^ twctauW
4V^ wfiMwi =fe <W o^j«i W4 awA t*sV Aeate awM W$ ~v& AVi coie- wW ^
<W JeVt^c^r ^
(p\i&£ fl(vw ^ Cffr^A v^\oAio»> 4Vi$ c&St?
Go'i
*l* Oi^ S^erio/Xrr bj ct SkH cri^il. casts Wo «. fe<Wa( ca^ Jjeaw$G oHk
Cr<\.vo fepji ilcAtOjsji?

Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in treating the case as subject to harmless error analysis when the error was structural in nature