Adrian Durden v. State of Indiana
99 N.E.3d 645
Ind.2018Background
- Adrian Durden was tried (second trial after a hung jury) on murder and multiple drug charges; after deliberations began a juror (Juror 12) sent a note saying she could not agree and asked to be excused.
- The trial judge, after a private chambers discussion off the record, proposed excusing Juror 12 and replacing her with the second alternate; defense counsel expressly agreed on the record and declined any special caveats or instructions.
- The court removed Juror 12, installed the second alternate (chosen to preserve an African-American juror), told the foreperson not to discuss the removal with the panel, and resumed deliberations; the jury convicted Durden on all counts.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the short record failed to satisfy Riggs v. State requirements for removal after deliberations had begun and that the error was structural, requiring automatic reversal.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, found the trial court’s record deficient under Riggs (thus structural error as to the removal procedure), but held Durden invited the error by affirmatively consenting to the procedure and therefore could not obtain reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Durden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court’s post‑deliberation removal of Juror 12 complied with Riggs | Removal was acceptable given circumstances; Durden consented so no reversal | Removal violated Riggs; structural error that requires automatic reversal | Court: Record fails Riggs, so removal was structural error, but… |
| Whether Durden’s on‑the‑record assent precludes relief (invited‑error) | Durden’s counsel expressly agreed; invited‑error bars relief | Structural errors cannot be invited or waived; automatic reversal required | Court: Invited‑error applies to structural errors here; Durden waived challenge by assent; affirmation affirmed |
| Whether selection of the second alternate (skipping first) violated Trial Rule 47(B) | State: selection was mutually agreed and part of strategy (racial composition concern) | Durden: trial rule violated | Court: Durden waived this argument by agreeing to the second alternate |
| Whether trial court took adequate steps to minimize prejudice to remaining jurors | State: initial steps (foreperson admonished) and consent cured concerns | Durden: court failed to question juror, failed to admonish remaining jurors; prejudice unknown | Court: Record insufficient under Riggs to show minimizing steps; error structural but invited by defense assent |
Key Cases Cited
- Riggs v. State, 809 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. 2004) (sets record and remedial requirements for removing a juror after deliberations begin)
- Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987) (deprivation of an impartial jury generally requires automatic reversal)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (discusses preservation and when structural errors require prejudice showing if not preserved)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (presumption that counsel’s strategic choices are reasonable)
- Gonzalez‑Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (discusses structural error and difficulty of harmless‑error inquiry)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (describes structural error category and its consequences)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (consent to courtroom closure can bar later challenge under state procedural rules)