weaver
masssachusetts
argued
april
decided
june
petitioner
tried
massachusetts
trial
courtroom
accommodate
potential
jurors
result
two
days
jury
selection
officer
excluded
courtroom
member
public
potential
juror
including
petitioner
mother
minister
defense
counsel
neither
objected
closure
trial
raised
issue
direct
review
petitioner
convicted
murder
related
charge
five
years
later
filed
motion
new
trial
state
arguing
relevant
attorney
provided
ineffective
assistance
failing
object
courtroom
closure
trial
ruled
entitled
relief
massachusetts
judicial
affirmed
relevant
part
although
recognized
violation
right
public
trial
structural
error
rejected
petitioner
claim
shown
prejudice
held
context
violation
jury
selection
error
neither
preserved
raised
direct
review
raised
later
via
claim
defendant
must
demonstrate
prejudice
secure
new
trial
pp
case
requires
examination
proper
application
doctrines
structural
error
ineffective
assistance
counsel
intertwined
reasons
error
deemed
structural
may
influence
proper
standard
used
evaluate
claim
premised
failure
object
error
pp
generally
constitutional
error
contribute
verdict
obtained
deemed
harmless
means
defendant
entitled
reversal
chapman
california
however
structural
error
affect
framework
within
trial
proceeds
arizona
fulminante
defies
harmless
error
analysis
thus
structural
error
objected
raised
direct
review
defendant
entitled
relief
without
inquiry
harm
appear
least
three
broad
rationales
finding
error
structural
one
right
issue
protect
defendant
erroneous
conviction
instead
protects
interest
like
defendant
right
conduct
defense
harm
irrelevant
basis
underlying
right
see
another
error
effects
simply
hard
measure
defendant
denied
right
select
attorney
making
almost
impossible
government
show
error
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
chapman
supra
finally
errors
always
result
fundamental
unfairness
indigent
defendant
denied
attorney
see
gideon
wainwright
purposes
case
critical
point
error
count
structural
even
lead
fundamental
unfairness
every
case
see
supra
pp
violation
counts
structural
error
always
lead
fundamental
unfairness
opinions
teach
courtroom
closure
avoided
circumstances
justified
see
waller
georgia
presley
georgia
fact
right
subject
exceptions
suggests
every
violation
results
fundamental
unfairness
indeed
said
violation
structural
difficulty
assessing
effect
error
supra
right
also
furthers
interests
protecting
defendant
unjust
conviction
including
rights
press
public
large
see
superior
riverside
thus
unlawful
closure
take
place
yet
trial
still
fundamentally
fair
defendant
standpoint
pp
proper
remedy
addressing
violation
right
public
trial
depends
objection
raised
objection
made
trial
issue
raised
direct
appeal
defendant
generally
entitled
automatic
reversal
regardless
error
actual
effect
outcome
neder
however
defendant
preserve
structural
error
direct
review
raises
later
context
claim
defendant
generally
bears
burden
show
deficient
performance
attorney
error
prejudiced
defense
strickland
washington
demonstrate
prejudice
cases
defendant
must
show
reasonable
probability
result
proceeding
different
attorney
error
analytical
purposes
case
assume
petitioner
requested
even
showing
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
relief
still
must
granted
defendant
shows
attorney
errors
rendered
trial
fundamentally
unfair
every
violation
lead
fundamentally
unfair
trial
failure
object
violation
always
deprive
defendant
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
thus
defendant
raising
violation
via
claim
must
show
either
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
case
assumed
particular
violation
serious
render
trial
fundamentally
unfair
neither
reasoning
holding
calls
question
precedents
deeming
certain
errors
structural
requiring
reversal
fundamental
unfairness
see
sullivan
louisiana
tumey
ohio
vasquez
hillery
granting
automatic
relief
defendants
prevailed
claims
race
gender
discrimination
jury
selection
batson
kentucky
errors
cases
preserved
raised
direct
appeal
reason
placing
burden
petitioner
however
derives
nature
error
difference
violation
preserved
raised
direct
review
violation
raised
claim
defendant
objects
courtroom
closure
trial
either
order
courtroom
opened
explain
reasons
keeping
closed
defendant
first
raises
closure
claim
trial
chance
cure
violation
costs
uncertainties
new
trial
also
greater
time
elapsed
cases
finality
interest
risk
see
strickland
supra
differences
justify
different
standard
evaluating
structural
error
depending
whether
raised
direct
review
claim
pp
petitioner
shown
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
counsel
failure
object
counsel
shortcomings
led
fundamentally
unfair
trial
entitled
new
trial
although
potential
jurors
might
behaved
differently
petitioner
family
public
present
petitioner
offered
evidence
suggesting
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
counsel
failure
object
also
failed
demonstrate
fundamental
unfairness
mother
minister
indeed
excluded
jury
selection
trial
conducted
secret
remote
place
closure
limited
jury
voir
dire
courtroom
remained
open
evidentiary
phase
trial
closure
decision
apparently
made
officers
judge
venire
members
become
jurors
observed
proceedings
record
proceedings
indicates
basis
concern
closure
showing
furthermore
potential
harms
flowing
courtroom
closure
came
pass
case
misbehavior
prosecutor
judge
party
thus
even
though
case
comes
assumption
closure
sixth
amendment
violation
violation
pervade
whole
trial
lead
basic
unfairness
pp
mass
affirmed
kennedy
delivered
opinion
roberts
thomas
ginsburg
sotomayor
gorsuch
joined
thomas
filed
concurring
opinion
gorsuch
joined
alito
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
gorsuch
joined
breyer
filed
dissenting
opinion
kagan
joined
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
kentel
myrone
weaver
petitioner
massachusetts
writ
certiorari
judicial
massachusetts
june
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
petitioner
trial
state
criminal
charges
courtroom
occupied
potential
jurors
closed
public
two
days
jury
selection
process
defense
counsel
neither
objected
closure
trial
raised
issue
direct
review
case
comes
assumption
failing
object
defense
counsel
provided
ineffective
assistance
direct
review
context
underlying
constitutional
violation
courtroom
closure
treated
structural
error
error
entitling
defendant
automatic
reversal
without
inquiry
prejudice
question
whether
invalidation
conviction
required
well
prejudice
inquiry
altered
structural
error
raised
context
claim
boy
shot
killed
boston
witness
saw
young
man
fleeing
scene
crime
saw
pull
pistol
baseball
hat
fell
head
police
recovered
hat
featured
distinctive
airbrushed
detroit
tigers
logo
either
side
hat
distinctive
markings
linked
kentel
weaver
petitioner
dna
obtained
hat
matched
petitioner
dna
two
weeks
crime
police
went
petitioner
house
question
admitted
losing
hat
around
time
shooting
denied
involved
petitioner
mother
sure
later
questioned
petitioner
asked
whether
scene
shooting
said
asked
shooter
knew
shooter
petitioner
put
head
said
nothing
believing
response
admission
guilt
insisted
petitioner
go
police
station
confess
petitioner
indicted
massachusetts
state
murder
unlicensed
possession
handgun
pleaded
guilty
proceeded
trial
pool
potential
jury
members
large
people
assigned
courtroom
accommodate
courtroom
seating
result
trial
judge
brought
potential
jurors
courtroom
introduce
case
ask
certain
preliminary
questions
entire
venire
panel
many
potential
jurors
seats
stand
courtroom
preliminary
questions
potential
jurors
standing
moved
outside
courtroom
wait
individual
questioning
potential
jurors
judge
acknowledged
hallway
comfortable
place
wait
thanked
potential
jurors
patience
tr
apr
judge
noted
simply
space
courtroom
everybody
seats
courtroom
occupied
venire
panel
officer
excluded
courtroom
member
public
potential
juror
petitioner
mother
minister
came
courtroom
observe
two
days
jury
selection
turned
away
occurred
decision
presley
georgia
per
curiam
presley
made
clear
right
extends
jury
selection
well
portions
trial
presley
massachusetts
courts
often
close
courtrooms
public
jury
selection
particular
murder
trials
case
petitioner
mother
told
defense
counsel
closure
point
jury
selection
counsel
believed
courtroom
closure
jury
selection
constitutional
crim
super
ct
app
pet
cert
result
discuss
matter
petitioner
tell
right
public
trial
included
jury
voir
dire
object
closure
ibid
ensuing
trial
government
presented
strong
evidence
petitioner
guilt
case
consisted
incriminating
details
outlined
including
petitioner
confession
police
jury
convicted
petitioner
counts
sentenced
life
prison
murder
charge
year
prison
charge
five
years
later
petitioner
filed
motion
new
trial
massachusetts
state
relevant
argued
attorney
provided
ineffective
assistance
failing
object
courtroom
closure
evidentiary
hearing
trial
recognized
violation
right
public
trial
based
following
findings
courtroom
closed
closure
neither
de
minimis
trivial
closure
unjustified
closure
full
rather
partial
meaning
members
public
rather
excluded
courtroom
trial
determined
defense
counsel
failed
object
serious
incompetency
inefficiency
inattention
quoting
massachusetts
chleikh
mass
app
hand
petitioner
offered
evidence
legal
argument
establishing
prejudice
app
pet
cert
reason
held
petitioner
entitled
relief
petitioner
appealed
denial
motion
new
trial
massachusetts
judicial
consolidated
appeal
petitioner
direct
appeal
noted
objection
closure
trial
issue
raised
direct
appeal
judicial
affirmed
relevant
part
although
recognized
violation
sixth
amendment
right
public
trial
constitutes
structural
error
stated
petitioner
failed
show
trial
counsel
conduct
caused
prejudice
warranting
new
trial
mass
reasoning
rejected
petitioner
claim
ineffective
assistance
counsel
disagreement
among
federal
courts
appeals
state
courts
last
resort
whether
defendant
must
demonstrate
prejudice
case
like
one
structural
error
neither
preserved
raised
direct
review
raised
later
via
claim
alleging
ineffective
assistance
counsel
courts
held
defendant
shows
attorney
unreasonably
failed
object
structural
error
defendant
entitled
new
trial
without
inquiry
see
johnson
sherry
owens
littlejohn
state
lamere
mont
courts
held
defendant
entitled
relief
show
prejudice
see
purvis
crosby
gomez
reid
state
granted
certiorari
resolve
disagreement
specifically
context
trial
counsel
failure
object
closure
courtroom
jury
selection
ii
case
requires
discussion
proper
application
two
doctrines
structural
error
ineffective
assistance
counsel
two
doctrines
intertwined
reasons
error
deemed
structural
may
influence
proper
standard
used
evaluate
claim
premised
failure
object
error
concept
structural
error
discussed
first
chapman
california
adopted
general
rule
constitutional
error
automatically
require
reversal
conviction
zona
fulminante
citing
man
supra
government
show
beyond
reasonable
doubt
error
complained
contribute
verdict
obtained
held
error
deemed
harmless
defendant
entitled
reversal
recognized
however
errors
deemed
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
errors
came
known
structural
errors
see
fulminante
purpose
structural
error
doctrine
ensure
insistence
certain
basic
constitutional
guarantees
define
framework
criminal
trial
thus
defining
feature
structural
error
affect
framework
within
trial
proceeds
rather
simply
error
trial
process
reason
structural
error
def
ies
analysis
harmless
error
standards
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
precise
reason
particular
error
amenable
kind
analysis
thus
precise
reason
deemed
structural
varies
significant
way
error
error
appear
least
three
broad
rationales
first
error
deemed
structural
instances
right
issue
designed
protect
defendant
erroneous
conviction
instead
protects
interest
true
defendant
right
conduct
defense
exercised
usually
increases
likelihood
trial
outcome
unfavorable
defendant
mckaskle
wiggins
right
based
fundamental
legal
principle
defendant
must
allowed
make
choices
proper
way
protect
liberty
see
faretta
california
harm
irrelevant
basis
underlying
right
deemed
violation
right
structural
error
see
second
error
deemed
structural
effects
error
simply
hard
measure
example
defendant
denied
right
select
attorney
precise
effect
violation
ascertained
ibid
quoting
vasquez
hillery
government
result
find
almost
impossible
show
error
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
chapman
supra
efficiency
costs
letting
government
try
make
showing
unjustified
third
error
deemed
structural
error
always
results
fundamental
unfairness
example
indigent
defendant
denied
attorney
judge
fails
give
instruction
resulting
trial
always
fundamentally
unfair
one
see
gideon
wainwright
right
attorney
sullivan
louisiana
right
instruction
therefore
futile
government
try
show
harmlessness
categories
rigid
particular
case
one
rationales
may
part
explanation
error
deemed
structural
see
purposes
however
one
point
critical
error
count
structural
even
error
lead
fundamental
unfairness
every
case
see
supra
rejecting
inconsistent
reasoning
precedents
idea
structural
errors
always
necessarily
render
trial
fundamentally
unfair
unreliable
emphasis
deleted
noted
violation
right
public
trial
structural
error
see
supra
relevant
determine
particular
question
whether
violation
counts
structural
always
leads
fundamental
unfairness
reason
waller
georgia
state
prohibited
public
viewing
weeklong
suppression
hearing
concern
privacy
persons
trial
see
although
recognized
instances
closure
justified
noted
circumstances
rare
closure
question
unjustified
still
order
new
trial
instead
ordered
new
suppression
hearing
open
public
evidence
found
admissible
renewed
pretrial
proceeding
held
new
trial
guilt
necessary
ibid
despite
structural
aspect
violation
years
waller
decision
issued
per
curiam
ruling
presley
georgia
case
courtroom
closed
public
jury
voir
dire
unlike
however
trial
objection
closure
issue
raised
direct
appeal
review
state
decision
allowing
closure
expressed
concern
state
reasoning
allow
courtroom
closed
jury
selection
whenever
trial
judge
decides
whatever
reason
prefer
fill
courtroom
potential
jurors
rather
spectators
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
although
expressly
noted
courtroom
closure
may
ordered
circumstances
also
stated
still
incumbent
upon
trial
consider
reasonable
alternatives
closure
opinions
teach
courtroom
closure
avoided
circumstances
justified
problems
may
encountered
trial
courts
deciding
whether
closures
necessary
even
deciding
members
public
admitted
seats
scarce
difficult
ones
example
often
preliminary
instructions
judge
may
want
give
venire
whole
rather
repeating
instructions
perhaps
unintentional
differences
several
groups
potential
jurors
hand
various
constituencies
public
family
accused
family
victim
members
press
persons
interests
observing
selection
jurors
best
manage
problems
topic
discussed
length
decision
commentary
found
although
right
structural
subject
exceptions
see
simonson
criminal
audience
world
harv
rev
discussing
situations
trial
may
order
courtroom
closure
though
cases
rare
judge
may
deprive
defendant
right
open
courtroom
making
proper
factual
findings
support
decision
see
waller
supra
fact
right
subject
exceptions
suggests
every
violation
results
fundamental
unfairness
violation
occur
moreover
presley
simply
trial
omits
make
proper
findings
closing
courtroom
even
findings
might
fully
supported
evidence
see
unconvincing
deem
trial
fundamentally
unfair
judge
omitted
announce
factual
findings
making
otherwise
valid
decision
order
courtroom
temporarily
closed
result
likewise
unconvincing
said
violation
always
leads
fundamentally
unfair
trial
indeed
said
violation
renders
trial
fundamentally
unfair
every
case
two
cases
discussed
reasons
classifying
violation
structural
error
said
violation
structural
different
reason
difficulty
assessing
effect
error
see
also
waller
supra
right
also
protects
interests
belong
defendant
right
open
courtroom
protects
rights
public
large
press
well
rights
accused
see
superior
riverside
richmond
newspapers
virginia
one
factor
leading
classification
structural
error
right
furthers
interests
protecting
defendant
unjust
conviction
precepts
confirm
conclusion
reaches
right
important
fundamental
reasons
cases
unlawful
closure
might
take
place
yet
trial
still
fundamentally
fair
defendant
standpoint
iii
turns
proper
remedy
addressing
violation
structural
right
particular
right
public
trial
despite
name
term
structural
error
carries
talismanic
significance
doctrinal
matter
means
government
entitled
deprive
defendant
new
trial
showing
error
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
chapman
thus
case
structural
error
objection
trial
issue
raised
direct
appeal
defendant
generally
entitled
automatic
reversal
regardless
error
actual
effect
outcome
neder
question
becomes
showing
necessary
defendant
preserve
structural
error
direct
review
raises
later
context
claim
obtain
relief
basis
ineffective
assistance
counsel
defendant
general
rule
bears
burden
meet
two
standards
first
defendant
must
show
deficient
performance
attorney
error
serious
counsel
functioning
guaranteed
defendant
sixth
amendment
strickland
washington
second
defendant
must
show
attorney
error
prejudiced
defense
ibid
prejudice
showing
cases
necessary
part
strickland
claim
reason
defendant
right
effective
representation
right
attorney
performs
duties
rule
therefore
violation
sixth
amendment
right
effective
representation
defendant
prejudiced
ibid
emphasis
deleted
see
also
premo
moore
lockhart
fretwell
said
concept
prejudice
defined
different
ways
depending
context
appears
ordinary
strickland
case
prejudice
means
reasonable
probability
counsel
unprofessional
errors
result
proceeding
different
strickland
cautioned
prejudice
inquiry
meant
applied
mechanical
fashion
evaluating
claim
ultimate
inquiry
must
concentrate
fundamental
fairness
proceeding
ibid
petitioner
therefore
argues
proper
interpretation
strickland
even
showing
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
relief
still
must
granted
convicted
person
shows
attorney
errors
rendered
trial
fundamentally
unfair
analytical
purposes
case
assume
petitioner
interpretation
strickland
correct
one
light
ultimate
holding
however
need
decide
question
explained
every
violation
fact
lead
fundamentally
unfair
trial
see
supra
said
failure
object
violation
always
deprives
defendant
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
thus
defendant
raises
violation
via
claim
strickland
prejudice
shown
automatically
instead
burden
defendant
show
either
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
case
assumed
purposes
see
supra
show
particular
violation
serious
render
trial
fundamentally
unfair
neither
reasoning
holding
calls
question
precedents
determining
certain
errors
deemed
structural
require
reversal
cause
fundamental
unfairness
either
defendant
specific
case
pervasive
undermining
systemic
requirements
fair
open
judicial
process
see
murray
contextual
approach
harmless
error
review
harv
rev
noting
eclectic
normative
objectives
criminal
procedure
go
beyond
protecting
defendant
erroneous
conviction
include
ensuring
administration
justice
reasonably
appear
quoting
liljeberg
health
services
acquisition
precedents
include
sullivan
louisiana
failure
give
instruction
tumey
ohio
biased
judge
vasquez
hillery
exclusion
grand
jurors
basis
race
see
neder
supra
describing
errors
structural
addition
granted
automatic
relief
defendants
prevailed
claims
alleging
race
gender
discrimination
selection
petit
jury
see
batson
kentucky
alabama
ex
rel
though
yet
label
errors
structural
express
terms
see
neder
supra
errors
cases
necessitated
automatic
reversal
preserved
raised
direct
appeal
opinion
address
whether
result
different
errors
raised
instead
claim
collateral
review
reason
placing
burden
petitioner
case
however
derives
nature
error
see
supra
difference
violation
preserved
raised
direct
review
violation
raised
claim
explained
defendant
objects
courtroom
closure
trial
either
order
courtroom
opened
explain
reasons
keeping
closed
see
supra
defendant
first
raises
closure
claim
however
trial
deprived
chance
cure
violation
either
opening
courtroom
explaining
reasons
closure
furthermore
state
federal
courts
adjudicate
errors
objected
trial
raised
direct
review
systemic
costs
remedying
error
diminished
extent
new
trial
ordered
direct
review
may
reasonable
chance
much
time
elapsed
witness
memories
still
accurate
physical
evidence
lost
also
advantages
direct
judicial
supervision
reviewing
courts
regular
course
appellate
process
give
instruction
trial
courts
familiar
context
allows
elaboration
relevant
principles
based
review
adequate
record
instance
case
factors
circumstances
might
justify
temporary
closure
best
considered
regular
appellate
process
context
later
proceeding
added
time
delays
claim
raised
postconviction
proceedings
costs
uncertainties
new
trial
greater
time
elapsed
cases
finality
interest
risk
see
strickland
noting
profound
importance
finality
criminal
proceedings
direct
review
often
given
least
one
opportunity
appellate
review
trial
proceedings
differences
justify
different
standard
evaluating
structural
error
depending
whether
raised
direct
review
raised
instead
claim
alleging
ineffective
assistance
counsel
sum
claim
function
way
escape
rules
waiver
forfeiture
raise
issues
presented
trial
thus
undermining
finality
jury
verdicts
harrington
richter
reason
rules
governing
claims
must
applied
scrupulous
care
premo
iv
final
inquiry
concerns
claim
case
although
case
comes
assumption
petitioner
shown
deficient
performance
counsel
shown
prejudice
ordinary
sense
reasonable
probability
jury
convicted
attorney
objected
closure
course
possible
potential
jurors
might
behaved
differently
petitioner
family
present
true
presence
public
might
bearing
juror
reaction
petitioner
offered
evidence
legal
argument
establishing
prejudice
sense
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
counsel
failure
object
app
pet
cert
see
strickland
circumstances
different
result
might
obtain
instance
defense
counsel
errs
failing
object
government
main
witness
testifies
secret
defendant
might
able
show
prejudice
little
detail
see
ibid
even
circumstances
however
burden
remain
defendant
make
prejudice
showing
violation
always
lead
fundamentally
unfair
trial
see
supra
light
assumption
prejudice
shown
demonstration
fundamental
unfairness
see
supra
remaining
question
whether
petitioner
shown
counsel
failure
object
rendered
trial
fundamentally
unfair
see
strickland
supra
concludes
petitioner
made
showing
although
petitioner
mother
minister
indeed
excluded
courtroom
two
days
jury
selection
petitioner
trial
conducted
secret
remote
place
cf
oliver
closure
limited
jury
voir
dire
courtroom
remained
open
evidentiary
phase
trial
closure
decision
apparently
made
officers
rather
judge
many
members
venire
become
jurors
observe
proceedings
record
made
proceedings
indicate
basis
concern
closure
showing
furthermore
potential
harms
flowing
courtroom
closure
came
pass
case
example
suggestion
juror
lied
voir
dire
suggestion
misbehavior
prosecutor
judge
party
suggestion
participants
failed
approach
duties
neutrality
serious
purpose
system
demands
true
case
comes
assumption
closure
sixth
amendment
violation
must
recognized
open
trials
ensure
respect
justice
system
allow
press
public
judge
proceedings
occur
nation
courts
even
violation
pervade
whole
trial
lead
basic
unfairness
sum
petitioner
shown
reasonable
probability
different
outcome
counsel
failure
object
shown
counsel
shortcomings
led
fundamentally
unfair
trial
entitled
new
trial
criminal
justice
system
constant
indeed
unending
duty
judiciary
seek
find
proper
balance
necessity
fair
trials
importance
finality
judgments
structural
error
preserved
raised
direct
review
balance
defendant
favor
new
trial
generally
granted
matter
right
structural
error
raised
context
claim
however
finality
concerns
far
pronounced
reason
light
circumstances
present
case
petitioner
must
show
prejudice
order
obtain
new
trial
explained
made
required
showing
judgment
massachusetts
judicial
affirmed
ordered
thomas
concurring
kentel
myrone
weaver
petitioner
massachusetts
writ
certiorari
judicial
massachusetts
june
justice
thomas
justice
gorsuch
joins
concurring
write
separately
two
observations
scope
holding
first
case
comes
us
parties
assumption
closure
courtroom
jury
selection
sixth
amendment
violation
defense
counsel
provided
ineffective
assistance
failing
object
ante
previously
held
per
curiam
opinion
issued
without
benefit
merits
briefing
argument
sixth
amendment
right
public
trial
extends
jury
selection
see
presley
georgia
thomas
dissenting
doubts
whether
holding
consistent
original
understanding
right
public
trial
open
reconsidering
case
asked
second
assume
analytical
purposes
case
defendant
may
establish
prejudice
strickland
washington
demonstrating
attorney
error
led
fundamentally
unfair
trial
ante
according
strickland
defendant
may
establish
prejudice
showing
reasonable
probability
counsel
unprofessional
errors
result
proceeding
different
showing
ctual
constructive
denial
assistance
counsel
altogether
showing
counsel
labored
actual
conflict
interest
strickland
hold
assumes
defendant
may
establish
prejudice
showing
counsel
errors
rendered
trial
fundamentally
unfair
ante
concludes
closure
petitioner
jury
selection
lead
fundamental
unfairness
event
ante
part
discussion
fundamental
unfairness
see
ante
necessary
result
light
observations
read
opinion
preclude
approach
set
forth
justice
alito
opinion
correctly
applies
precedents
alito
concurring
judgment
kentel
myrone
weaver
petitioner
massachusetts
writ
certiorari
judicial
massachusetts
june
justice
alito
justice
gorsuch
joins
concurring
judgment
case
calls
straightforward
application
familiar
standard
evaluating
ineffective
assistance
counsel
claims
strickland
washington
weaver
meet
standard
therefore
claim
must
rejected
sixth
amendment
protects
criminal
defendant
right
assistance
counsel
defence
right
violated
counsel
performance
deficient
relevant
sense
term
deficient
performance
prejudiced
defense
strickland
supra
prejudice
requirement
one
issue
case
arises
nature
right
effective
representation
counsel
simply
unless
mistakes
harmed
defense
least
unless
reasonably
likely
words
violation
sixth
amendment
right
effective
representation
defendant
prejudiced
ibid
strickland
definition
prejudice
based
underlying
proceeding
benchmark
judging
claim
ineffectiveness
must
whether
counsel
conduct
undermined
proper
functioning
adversarial
process
trial
relied
produced
result
emphasis
added
see
cronic
purpose
sixth
amendment
guarantee
counsel
ensure
defendant
assistance
necessary
justify
reliance
outcome
proceeding
strickland
accordingly
attorney
error
warrant
setting
aside
judgment
criminal
proceeding
error
effect
judgment
weaver
makes
much
strickland
statement
ultimate
focus
inquiry
must
fundamental
fairness
proceeding
next
sentence
clarifies
mind
namely
reliability
proceeding
sentence
explains
proper
concern
every
case
whether
despite
strong
presumption
reliability
result
particular
proceeding
unreliable
ibid
words
focus
reliability
consistent
throughout
strickland
opinion
show
counsel
error
rendered
legal
proceeding
unreliable
defendant
ordinarily
must
demonstrate
reasonable
probability
counsel
unprofessional
errors
result
proceeding
different
challenge
conviction
one
case
means
defendant
must
show
reasonable
probability
absent
errors
factfinder
reasonable
doubt
respecting
guilt
relieved
defendants
obligation
make
affirmative
showing
narrow
set
cases
accused
effectively
denied
counsel
altogether
include
actual
constructive
denial
counsel
state
interference
counsel
assistance
counsel
labors
actual
conflicts
interest
cronic
prejudice
presumed
respect
errors
likely
prejudice
accused
cost
litigating
effect
particular
case
unjustified
see
strickland
supra
mickens
taylor
short
two
ways
meeting
strickland
prejudice
requirement
defendant
must
demonstrate
either
error
issue
prejudicial
belongs
narrow
class
attorney
errors
tantamount
denial
counsel
individualized
showing
prejudice
unnecessary
weaver
attempts
escape
framework
stressing
deprivation
right
public
trial
described
structural
error
irrelevant
strickland
concept
structural
error
comes
play
established
error
occurred
trial
level
must
decided
whether
error
harmless
see
neder
arizona
fulminante
prejudice
prong
strickland
entirely
different
ask
whether
error
harmless
whether
error
unless
counsel
deficient
performance
prejudiced
defense
sixth
amendment
violation
first
place
see
supra
even
attorney
deficient
performance
pervades
entire
trial
allow
reversal
conviction
reason
without
showing
prejudice
requirement
showing
prejudice
ineffectiveness
claims
stems
definition
right
issue
weaver
theory
conflicts
strickland
implies
attorney
error
prejudicial
even
effect
conceivable
effect
outcome
trial
strickland
supra
precisely
strickland
rules
sum
order
obtain
relief
strickland
weaver
must
show
result
trial
demonstrating
reasonable
likelihood
counsel
error
affected
verdict
alternatively
establish
error
falls
within
short
list
errors
prejudice
presumed
weaver
attempted
make
either
argument
claim
must
rejected
affirm
judgment
judicial
massachusetts
ground
breyer
dissenting
kentel
myrone
weaver
petitioner
massachusetts
writ
certiorari
judicial
massachusetts
june
justice
breyer
justice
kagan
joins
dissenting
notes
strickland
prejudice
inquiry
meant
applied
fashion
ante
quoting
strickland
washington
agree
view
follows
principle
defendant
shows
attorney
constitutionally
deficient
performance
produced
structural
error
face
additional
often
insurmountable
strickland
hurdle
demonstrating
error
changed
outcome
proceeding
cases
divided
constitutional
errors
two
classes
trial
errors
structural
errors
trial
errors
discrete
mistakes
occu
presentation
case
jury
arizona
fulminante
structural
errors
hand
affec
framework
within
trial
proceeds
recognized
structural
errors
distinctive
attributes
make
defy
analysis
standards
therefore
categorically
exempted
structural
errors
harmlessness
review
trial
errors
subjected
precedent
try
parse
structural
errors
truly
egregious
ones
simply
views
structural
errors
intrinsically
harmful
holds
structural
error
warrants
automatic
reversal
direct
appeal
without
regard
effect
outcome
trial
neder
majority
take
approach
assumes
structural
errors
lead
fundamental
unfairness
others
warrant
relief
without
showing
actual
prejudice
strickland
ante
agree
showing
fundamental
unfairness
sufficient
satisfy
strickland
try
draw
distinction
even
structural
errors
create
fundamental
unfairness
structural
errors
nonetheless
features
make
defy
analysis
standards
fulminante
supra
structural
errors
fundamental
unfairness
ones
exempt
harmlessness
inquiry
warrant
automatic
reversal
direct
review
features
mean
structural
errors
defy
analysis
strickland
instance
majority
concludes
errors
error
issue
case
labeled
structural
effects
simply
hard
measure
ante
see
sullivan
louisiana
explaining
structural
errors
consequences
necessarily
unquantifiable
indeterminate
error
whose
effects
inherently
indeterminate
prove
susceptible
analysis
strickland
difficulty
assessing
effect
error
turn
analysis
speculative
inquiry
might
occurred
alternate
universe
supra
undermine
defendant
ability
make
showing
establish
claim
problem
evident
regard
violations
recognized
benefits
public
trial
frequently
intangible
difficult
prove
matter
chance
waller
georgia
result
requirement
prejudice
shown
cases
deprive
defendant
guarantee
difficult
envisage
case
evidence
available
specific
injury
ibid
quoting
ex
rel
bennett
rundle
en
banc
alteration
original
order
establish
actual
prejudice
attorney
failure
object
violation
defendant
face
nearly
impossible
burden
establishing
trial
might
gone
differently
open
public
see
ibid
emonstration
prejudice
kind
case
practical
impossibility
quoting
state
sheppard
see
read
strickland
requiring
defendants
prove
held
proved
courts
presume
prejudice
counsel
deficient
performance
leads
structural
error
defendants
may
well
unable
obtain
relief
incompetence
deprived
basic
protections
without
criminal
trial
reliably
serve
function
vehicle
determination
guilt
innocence
neder
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
precisely
sort
mechanical
application
strickland
tells
us
avoid
view
require
defendants
take
task
normally
impossible
perform
give
lower
courts
unenviably
complex
job
deciphering
structural
errors
really
undermine
fundamental
fairness
game
worth
candle
simply
say
structural
errors
categorically
insusceptible
analysis
direct
review
categorically
insusceptible
analysis
strickland
claims
showing
attorney
constitutionally
deficient
performance
produced
structural
error
consequently
enough
entitle
defendant
relief
respectfully
dissent