Opinion ID: 772135
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: As to all three defendants:

Text: 10 All three defendants argue that the prosecutor committed structural error in tipping the jury as to how to select a foreperson, for example, by recommending a secret ballot. Although the prosecutor's comments appear inappropriate to us--as they did to the district court, which instructed the prosecutor to refrain from making further comment in this regard --the statements were not, as the defendants urge on appeal, structural error. 11 The Supreme Court has said that structural errors are those that affect the framework within which the trial proceeds. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991). In contrast, trial errors are those that occur during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented. Id. at 307-08. 12 If error was committed in the instant case, it did not rise to the level of a structural defect. In the worst-case scenario,the jury was improperly influenced as to how it should go about picking a foreperson. But the method suggested--secret ballot--is certainly a permissible one. The defendants suggestion that this was an intrusion into the jury's deliberative function is without case precedent or merit. Furthermore, as trial error, the prosecutor's comments were in the instant case harmless. The district court appropriately responded to defense counsel's objection and properly instructed the jury as to the selection and role of the foreperson.