Joshua Frost v. Ron Van Boening, 757 F.3d 910

Frost is serving a 55-year sentence for robberies across eleven days with multiple accomplice and firearms charges.
Defense theory: Frost's involvement constituted accomplice liability or was done under duress; both theories were explained and developed at trial.
Trial court prohibited defense from arguing that the State failed to prove accomplice liability and forced a choice between theories in closing.
Washington Supreme Court held the trial misinterpreted precedent, violating due process and Sixth Amendment by restricting closing argument; court found error structural but harmless on review.
Federal habeas petition denied by district court and panel; en banc panel and eventually the majority held the error structural and reversable, remanding for conditional grant of the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s closing-argument restriction was structural error	Frost	State	Yes, structural error under Herring and Winship
Whether the error is subject to harmless-error review under AEDPA	Frost	State	No; errors of this type are structural and not subject to harmless review
Whether the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof	Frost	State	Yes; due process was violated and the burden was improperly shifted
Whether the Washington Supreme Court’s harmless-error conclusion was unreasonable under AEDPA	Frost	State	No; Washington court’s conclusion was reasonable under AEDPA

Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1975) (closing argument is a right; total denial is structural error)
Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (directed verdict; presumption of innocence considerations)
Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1977) (directed verdict considerations; elements of offense)
Gaudin v. United States, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (jury must find all elements beyond reasonable doubt)