structural constitutional error in Michigan

2025Id. at 117 n 4 (“We need not decide at this time whether the error here was limited to a violation of a court rule, as the prosecutor argues, or was a structural constitutional error, as defendant argues, because it is undisputed that since this is an unpreserved error, defendant must satisfy the plain-error standard of Carines in either event.”).

2016The Court also left unresolved whether the error was merely a trial error of failing to comply with MCR 2.511(H)(1) or whether it was “a structural constitutional error,” because being an unpreserved error, the “defendant must satisfy the plain-error standard of Carines in either event.” Cain, 498 Mich at 117 n 4.

2024The only other citation to Stevens was in a footnote in which the Supreme Court stated that “the failure to recuse after a judge’s conduct or actions have created an appearance of impropriety” does not “rise to the same level as when a judge improperly injects themselves into a criminal trial such that the veil of impartiality is destroyed, creating a structural constitutional error.” Id. at ___ n 7; slip op at 17.

2015Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (citations omitted). (b) “No federal court in the history of American jurisprudence has held the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury to necessarily include trial by sworn jury.” Turrietta, 696 F3d at 982 . (c) This Court has held that even actual juror misconduct, such as lying about one’s qualifications to serve as a juror, is not structural constitutional error, People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 556 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008), and at least one court has held that there is “no reason to treat a failure to administer the

2015Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (citations omitted). (b) “No federal court in the history of American jurisprudence has held the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury to necessarily include trial by sworn jury.” Turrietta, 696 F3d at 982 . (c) This Court has held that even actual juror misconduct, such as lying about one’s qualifications to serve as a juror, is not structural constitutional error, People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 556 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008), and at least one court has held that there is “no reason to treat a failure to administer the

2015Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (citations omitted). (b) “No federal court in the history of American jurisprudence has held the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury to necessarily include trial by sworn jury.” Turrietta, 696 F3d at 982 . (c) This Court has held that even actual juror misconduct, such as lying about one’s qualifications to serve as a juror, is not structural constitutional error, People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 556 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008), and at least one court has held that there is “no reason to treat a failure to administer the

2015Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (citations omitted). (b) “No federal court in the history of American jurisprudence has held the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury to necessarily include trial by sworn jury.” Turrietta, 696 F3d at 982 . (c) This Court has held that even actual juror misconduct, such as lying about one’s qualifications to serve as a juror, is not structural constitutional error, People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 556 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008), and at least one court has held that there is “no reason to treat a failure to administer the

2015Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (citations omitted). (b) “No federal court in the history of American jurisprudence has held the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury to necessarily include trial by sworn jury.” Turrietta, 696 F3d at 982 . (c) This Court has held that even actual juror misconduct, such as lying about one’s qualifications to serve as a juror, is not structural constitutional error, People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 556 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008), and at least one court has held that there is “no reason to treat a failure to administer the

2015Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (citations omitted). (b) “No federal court in the history of American jurisprudence has held the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury to necessarily include trial by sworn jury.” Turrietta, 696 F3d at 982 . (c) This Court has held that even actual juror misconduct, such as lying about one’s qualifications to serve as a juror, is not structural constitutional error, People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 556 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008), and at least one court has held that there is “no reason to treat a failure to administer the

2015Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8 ; 119 S Ct 1827 ; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (citations omitted). (b) “No federal court in the history of American jurisprudence has held the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury to necessarily include trial by sworn jury.” Turrietta, 696 F3d at 982 . (c) This Court has held that even actual juror misconduct, such as lying about one’s qualifications to serve as a juror, is not structural constitutional error, People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 556 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008), and at least one court has held that there is “no reason to treat a failure to administer the

2004People v. Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 51-52 , 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000).

2004People v. Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 51-52 , 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000).

2003In Anderson, our Supreme Court, following Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 ; 87 S Ct 824 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967), and Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 306-310 ; 111 S Ct 1246 ; 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991), defined a structural constitutional error as one that constitutes a defect in the constitution of the trial mechanism itself rather than an error in the conduct of the trial, which is amenable to harmless-error analysis in light of the quantum and strength of the untainted evidence.

2003In Anderson, our Supreme Court, following Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 ; 87 S Ct 824 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967), and Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 306-310 ; 111 S Ct 1246 ; 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991), defined a structural constitutional error as one that constitutes a defect in the constitution of the trial mechanism itself rather than an error in the conduct of the trial, which is amenable to harmless-error analysis in light of the quantum and strength of the untainted evidence.

2003In Anderson, our Supreme Court, following Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 ; 87 S Ct 824 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967), and Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 306-310 ; 111 S Ct 1246 ; 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991), defined a structural constitutional error as one that constitutes a defect in the constitution of the trial mechanism itself rather than an error in the conduct of the trial, which is amenable to harmless-error analysis in light of the quantum and strength of the untainted evidence.

2003In Anderson, our Supreme Court, following Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 ; 87 S Ct 824 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967), and Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 306-310 ; 111 S Ct 1246 ; 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991), defined a structural constitutional error as one that constitutes a defect in the constitution of the trial mechanism itself rather than an error in the conduct of the trial, which is amenable to harmless-error analysis in light of the quantum and strength of the untainted evidence.

2002However, I write separately because in reaching this result, the majority applies the plain error principle articulated in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2002However, I write separately because in reaching this result, the majority applies the plain error principle articulated in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).