Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019Nor was the "error" appellant complains of structural, requiring reversal, since appellant had counsel and his guilt was previously determined by an unbiased jury.2 Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 (1986) (holding that there is a strong presumption that an error is not structural "if the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator"); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1999) (a structural error is one that "deprive[s] defendants of 'basic protections without which 'a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence" 2018See 582 U.S. at ----, 137 S.Ct. at 1910 ("Thus, in the case of a structural error where there is an objection at trial and the issue is raised on direct appeal, the defendant generally is entitled to 'automatic reversal' regardless of the error's actual 'effect on the outcome.' " (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , 7, 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) ) ); id. at ----, 137 S.Ct. at 1911-12 (listing cases and stating "[t]he errors in those cases necessitated automatic reversal after they were preserved and then raised on direct appeal"); id. at ----, 137 S.Ct. at 1912 ("The reaso | 9 | 9 |
Weaver v. Massachusettsgreen2 sentences2018See Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1899 , 1908, 198 L.Ed.2d 420 (2017) (discussing the structural error doctrine). 2018See Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1899 , 1908, 198 L.Ed.2d 420 (2017) (discussing the structural error doctrine). | 6 | 6 |
Cortinas v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Second, if the conduct was improper, we must determine whether the improper conduct warrants reversal." Id. at 1188 , 196 P.3d at 476 . 2We reject Conway's argument that this was structural error.See Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1023-24 , 195 P.3d 315, 322-23 (2008) (explaining the narrow circumstances where a district court commits structural error). 2019Second, if the conduct was improper, we must determine whether the improper conduct warrants reversal." Id. at 1188 , 196 P.3d at 476 . 2We reject Conway's argument that this was structural error.See Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1023-24 , 195 P.3d 315, 322-23 (2008) (explaining the narrow circumstances where a district court commits structural error). | 5 | 6 |
Brass v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Morgan contends that the district court prejudged his Batson challenge and that this amounted to structural error under Brass v. State, 128 Nev. 748 , 291 P.3d 145 (2012). 2018Morgan contends that the district court prejudged his Batson challenge and that this amounted to structural error under Brass v. State, 128 Nev. 748 , 291 P.3d 145 (2012). | 3 | 6 |
United States v. Jeffrey Riddle (99-3405) Lavance Turnage (99-3406) Bernard Altshuler (99-3439)green2 sentences2017See United States v. Riddle, 249 F.3d 529, 534-35 (6th Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument that ineffective waiver of a defendant's right to attend in- chambers portion of voir dire constituted structural error); Manning v. State, 131 Nev., Adv. 2017See United States v. Riddle, 249 F.3d 529, 534-35 (6th Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument that ineffective waiver of a defendant's right to attend in- chambers portion of voir dire constituted structural error); Manning v. State, 131 Nev., Adv. | 2 | 2 |
Knipes v. Stategreen2 sentences2015An occurrence that "[is] so intrinsically harmful [to the concept of a fair trial] [constitutes a structural error that] require[s] automatic reversal . . . without regard to their effect on the outcome [of the proceeding]." Knipes v. State, 124 Nev. 927, 934 , 192 P.3d 1178, 1182-83 (2008) (second and fifth alterations in original) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7 (1999)); see also Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1024 , 195 P.3d 315, 322 (2008) (observing that a structural error "affect[s] the very framework within which the trial proceeds" (internal quotations omitted)). 2015An occurrence that "[is] so intrinsically harmful [to the concept of a fair trial] [constitutes a structural error that] require[s] automatic reversal . . . without regard to their effect on the outcome [of the proceeding]." Knipes v. State, 124 Nev. 927, 934 , 192 P.3d 1178, 1182-83 (2008) (second and fifth alterations in original) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7 (1999)); see also Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1024 , 195 P.3d 315, 322 (2008) (observing that a structural error "affect[s] the very framework within which the trial proceeds" (internal quotations omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Jeremias v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46 , 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (2018). 2019Op. 8, 412 P.3d at 48 . | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2020This constitutes structural error, Williams, 134 Nev. at 696, 429 P.3d at 310 , and we therefore are left with no choice but to reverse the judgment of conviction and remand this matter for a new trial.4 , J. 2020This constitutes structural error, Williams, 134 Nev. at 696, 429 P.3d at 310, and we therefore are left with no choice but to reverse the judgment of conviction and remand this matter for a new trial.4 , J. | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Patterson v. State, 129 Nev. 168, 178-79 , 298 P.3d 433, 439-40 (2013) (addressing a right- to-counsel issue that arose during a preliminary hearing under a harmless- error standard rather than under a structural-error standard because the alleged error did not result in the "total deprivation of counser). 2020See Patterson v. State, 129 Nev. 168, 178-79 , 298 P.3d 433, 439-40 (2013) (addressing a right- to-counsel issue that arose during a preliminary hearing under a harmless- error standard rather than under a structural-error standard because the alleged error did not result in the "total deprivation of counser). | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2019Nor was the "error" appellant complains of structural, requiring reversal, since appellant had counsel and his guilt was previously determined by an unbiased jury.2 Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 (1986) (holding that there is a strong presumption that an error is not structural "if the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator"); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1999) (a structural error is one that "deprive[s] defendants of 'basic protections without which 'a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence" 2019Nor was the "error" appellant complains of structural, requiring reversal, since appellant had counsel and his guilt was previously determined by an unbiased jury.2 Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 (1986) (holding that there is a strong presumption that an error is not structural "if the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator"); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1999) (a structural error is one that "deprive[s] defendants of 'basic protections without which 'a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence" | 1 | 1 |
Gideon v. Wainwrightgreen2 sentences2013Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344-45 (1963). 2013Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344-45 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Manley v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Manley v. State, 115 Nev. 114, 123 , 979 P.2d 703, 708-09 (1999) (applying harmless-error review to a claim that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by prosecutorial questions abridging the attorney-client privilege because the defendant was "represented by counsel at all times" and such an error "did not affect the framework within which the trial proceeded"). 2013Manley v. State, 115 Nev. 114, 123 , 979 P.2d 703, 708-09 (1999) (applying harmless-error review to a claim that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by prosecutorial questions abridging the attorney-client privilege because the defendant was "represented by counsel at all times" and such an error "did not affect the framework within which the trial proceeded"). | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen1 sentence2001See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-11 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. United States
green
1 sentence2019Though failure to timely administer the oath required by NRS 16.030 is a structural error, Barral v. State, 131 Nev. 520 , 525, 353 P.3d 1197 , 1200 (2015), cert. denied, U.S. 136 S. Ct. 2542 (2016), unpreserved structural errors are still subject to plain error review, Jeremias, 134 Nev., Adv. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Valdez v. State
green
2 sentences2019Second, if the conduct was improper, we must determine whether the improper conduct warrants reversal." Id. at 1188 , 196 P.3d at 476 . 2We reject Conway's argument that this was structural error.See Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1023-24 , 195 P.3d 315, 322-23 (2008) (explaining the narrow circumstances where a district court commits structural error). 2019Second, if the conduct was improper, we must determine whether the improper conduct warrants reversal." Id. at 1188 , 196 P.3d at 476 . 2We reject Conway's argument that this was structural error.See Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1023-24 , 195 P.3d 315, 322-23 (2008) (explaining the narrow circumstances where a district court commits structural error). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2014SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 ( 1947A e "when a defendant asserts a Batson violation, it is a structural error to dismiss the challenged juror prior to conducting the Batson hearing because it shows that the district court predetermined the challenge before actually hearing it." Id. at , 291 P.3d at 147. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.