Adrian Durden v. State of Indiana
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMassa, Justice
Criminal defendants enjoy a constitutional right to an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI ; Ind. Const. Art. 1, § 13. This right "is a structural guarantee," Carella v. California , 491 U.S. 263 , 268, 109 S.Ct. 2419 , 105 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring), and its "infraction can never be treated as harmless error." Gray v. Mississippi , 481 U.S. 648 , 668, 107 S.Ct. 2045 , 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). But is reversal necessary when the violation resulted directly from the defendant's affirmative actions at trial?
In this case, defense counsel…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by83 opinions
- Christapher Batchelor v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2019
- Derrick Cardosi v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2019
- Marcus Zanders v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2019
- Cody J. Chambless v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2019
- Delmar Kelly v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2019
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.