- 212 -
misconduct, the judgment can be upheld as harmless error."
DuFresne v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d at 107.
The term "structural defect" normally refers to the
violation of a fundamental constitutional right occurring during
a criminal trial that affects the very framework within which the
trial proceeds, so that the trial cannot reliably serve its
function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.
See Arizona v. Fulminante, supra at 309-310. The presence of a
structural defect in a criminal trial requires automatic
reversal of the conviction and a new trial. See, e.g., id.;
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).
Significantly, not all constitutional errors occurring
during a trial result in a structural defect in the proceedings.
To the contrary, there are a number of constitutional errors,
characterized as lesser "trial errors", that are susceptible to
harmless error analysis.
In Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991), a plurality
opinion, the Supreme Court discussed the distinction between a
constitutional violation that causes a structural defect in a
trial and a constitutional violation that is subject to harmless
error analysis. A majority of the Justices concluded that the
admission of the defendant's coerced confession at his murder
trial did not constitute a structural defect requiring automatic
reversal of the defendant's conviction. However, a separate
majority further concluded that the defendant was entitled to a
new trial because the State of Arizona had failed to meet its
Page: Previous 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011