Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Parts. I There is no question that the trial judge mistakenly prevented the defense from peremptorily back-striking a juror whom it identified to the trial judge. The law has been quite clear for some time that the trial judge has no discretion to restrict a defendant’s exercise of a peremptory challenge by back-striking. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 795 B(l); State v. Watts, 579 So.2d 931 (La.1991), and State v.Taylor, 93-2201, p. 22 (La.2/28/96), 669 So.2d 364, 376 (“In other words, peremptory challenges are exercisable at any time before the jury panel is sworn.”) |;>The Louisiana Supreme Court requires us to review the trial judge’s violation of the defendant’s right to peremptorily back-strike a juror under the so-called “harmless error” rule. See Taylor, 93-2201, p. 26, 669 So.2d at 378 (<HOLDING>) Despite my disagreement that this kind of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the failure to proffer rendered the allocution error harmless (B) holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error (C) holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding exclusion was harmless error (E) holding we find that the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to any error that occurred in not allowing back striking and so qualifies as harmless
Output (English): holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt