Because petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for counsel’s failure to object or that counsel’s shortcomings led to a fundamentally unfair trial, he is not entitled to a new trial. Although potential jurors might have behaved differently had petitioner’s family or the public been present, petitioner has offered no […]
Excluding the Public From Jury Selection (Part 4)
Not every public-trial violation will lead to a fundamentally unfair trial. And the failure to object to that violation does not always deprive the defendant of a reasonable probability of a different outcome. This portion of the holding is at odds with the fact that if an attorney objects to a courtroom being closed and […]
Excluding the Public From Jury Selection (Part 3)
The fact that the public-trial right is subject to exceptions suggests that not every public-trial violation results in fundamental unfairness. Indeed, the Court has said that a public-trial violation is structural because of the “difficulty of assessing the effect of the error.” This portion of the holding sends a clear message to judges and prosecutors […]
Excluding the Public From Jury Selection (Part 2)
Generally, a constitutional error that did not contribute to the verdict obtained is deemed harmless, which means the defendant is not entitled to reversal. However, a structural error, which affects the framework within which the trial proceeds defies harmless error analysis. Thus, when a structural error is objected to and then raised on direct review, […]
Excluding the Public From Jury Selection (Part 1)
On June 22, 2017, the United State Supreme Court decided the case of Kentel Weaver v. Massachusetts. When petitioner was tried in a state trial court, the courtroom could not accommodate all the potential jurors. As a result, for two days of jury selection, an officer of the court excluded from the courtroom any member […]
English
Spanish