Trial court's ban on alternate defenses wasn't structural error requiring reversal, SCOTUS says
Image from Shutterstock.
The U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated the robbery convictions of a defendant who argued the trial court improperly forced his lawyer to choose between defenses based on duress and insufficiency of the evidence.
In a summary reversal (PDF), the Supreme Court said the en banc San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it ruled the trial court’s refusal to allow both defenses was a structural error requiring automatic reversal.
Joshua Frost was convicted despite his testimony that his actions driving and performing surveillance for his armed robbery confederates were performed under duress. His lawyer wanted to argue duress as well as insufficiency of the evidence during his closing, but the trial judge insisted the lawyer had to pick just one argument. He chose duress.
On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court had ruled that both defenses should have been allowed, but the mistake was a trial error rather than a structural error, meaning that the mistake should be reviewed based on whether it was harmless error. The en banc 9th Circuit disagreed, finding structural error.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and reversed in a per curiam opinion. “Assuming for argument’s sake that the trial court violated the Constitution, it was not clearly established that its mistake ranked as structural error,” the Supreme Court said.
The en banc 9th Circuit had offered a second rationale for its decision, saying that the trial court had in effect forced the lawyer to concede his client’s guilt and shifted the burden of proof to Frost.
“No,” the U.S. Supreme Court said in addressing the argument. “Reasonable minds could disagree whether requiring the defense to choose between alternative theories amounts to requiring the defense to concede guilt. Still more could they disagree whether it amounts to eliminating the prosecution’s burden of proof, shifting the burden to the defendant, or directing a verdict.”
Even if the trial court somehow forced an admission of elements of the crime, the 9th Circuit was wrong to find that clearly established law holds such a tacit admission to be structural error, the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court noted that the en banc 9th Circuit had not determined whether the trial error was harmless and remanded for further proceedings.
