William MACH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART; Grant Woods, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that structural error occurred when a jury was exposed \during voir dire to an intrinsically prejudicial statement [which] resulted in the swearing in of a tainted jury\
• suggesting that, in cases of structural error, no prejudice need be shown
• finding prejudice when prospective juror, a social worker for child protective services, said sexual assault had been confirmed whenever a child had made an accusation
• noting a potential juror’s statements during voir dire “arguably” amounted to structural error
• veniremember commented that in all her years as a social worker, she had never encountered a child who lied about being sexually assaulted
• “Given the nature of [the potential juror’s] statements, the certainty with which they were delivered, the years of experience that led to them, and the number of times that they were repeated, we presume that at least one juror was tainted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).