Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Capital Defense Weekly
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Capital Defense WeeklyPer curiam: Hedgpeth v. Pulido
By Karl R. Keys, Esq.
ADVERTISEMENTS
“The United States Supreme Court issued one decision today. In Hedgpeth v. Pulido, the Court issued a per curiam decision, with 3 justices dissenting as to the remand, in which it held that a conviction based on jury instructions containing more than one theory of guilt, where one theory is invalid, is to be judged under the harmless error standard. The Ninth Circuit had found the error to be structural error.” [via Harmful Error]
From that opinion:
A conviction based on a general verdict is subject tochallenge if the jury was instructed on alternative theories of guilt and may have relied on an invalid one. See Strom-berg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931); Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957). In this case the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that such an error is?structural error,? requiring that the conviction be set aside on collateral review without regard to whether the flaw in the instructions prejudiced the defendant...continue to full postFull post as published by Capital Defense Weekly on December 02, 2008 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

High Court Issues Ruling on Alternative Jury Instructions
Supreme Court rules harmless error standard applies in jury instructions case







