1. (a\a 'SWa o>rc>s*cuie>r 's <^o discfcWvj recdpb oh AuPevuiAuh
dkvd case, Covvl-aivuiM, iAVU jv'Imuu WVVctrS
c£ 'SVraJoL^/ ^lP \v\c'ri^;w<xUor> / 't\)iAm( ve, uv\dA^ 1^22-^12?

2. V\ml vM)cUv GlAA^vvi(v\^\jOr rvc^Vjt fe tc>uv\tft_\ 4«a4 it'S^ l&O-MZfe,
^v\ (qO-M tOpCa^ "j&roVuV^ attoovsju^s froiu 6\%c losivx^ ^rtvJajb.
Cowvvv\uvucaV{c>^ stall ^rtsttutart

3. \\d WVi tflhSCfcS 'SUpAlVKSL Couxta tvror Wv no^ VyuHV\^
'VW 'Af^lata (kuata awsto-e*- Issiml ta
5up^XfiVMwJcal TW* vsWi* c£ femsas used \wfciciuaJion
fvoH (tafevukvvV s aVW-wsu^-c\HiJk foiatac\t\\Kal fast fiu
a): brux\ ??

Whether the Supreme Court should review a Kansas court's decision regarding defendant's constitutional rights and communication restrictions in a criminal case