Often, when the defendant complains on appeal of a constitutional violation at trial, there must be some showing of prejudice in order for the defendant to obtain relief. Even if a defendant shows that a violation occurred, the State usually has an opportunity to demonstrate that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. If the error is unlikely to have affected the result within the greater context of the trial, the defendant is not entitled to relief under harmless error review. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). Some errors, however, are deemed so serious and capable of affecting the fundamental integrity of the trial that harmless error review does not apply. These types of “structural” errors typically entitle the defendant to a new trial without any showing of prejudice and without regard to how the error may have affected the verdict. “The purpose of the structural error doctrine is to ensure insistence on certain basic, constitutional guarantees that should define the framework of any criminal trial.” Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) (Slip. op. at 9). There are some wrinkles, depending on the particular type and degree of the violation, including when the issue is raised and whether the issue was preserved at trial. Id. (structural error first raised on collateral review in ineffective assistance of counsel claim must show prejudice). These aren’t necessarily issues that frequently occur at trial, but several recent cases have discussed the concept. Given the potential impact of these errors at trial, I [...]
Faculty Coordinators
