Legal Opinion
Joshua Frost v. Ron Van Boening
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 29, 2014No. 11-35114PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge TALLMAN.
OPINION
THOMAS, Circuit Judge:
The Supreme Court has instructed that preclusion of closing argument in a criminal defense trial is structural constitutional error. Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 864-65, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975). Joshua Frost had two legitimate defenses to criminal charges, but the state trial court only permitted his counsel to argue one theory in closing, and the court specifically prohibited counsel from arguing that the State had not met its burden of proof. Because this conceded constitutional error requires…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Glebe v. FrostSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Lake v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2017
- Loher v. ThomasDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2014
- United States v. John TomkinsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- Joshua Frost v. Ron Van BoeningCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.