Whether the exclusion of a criminal defendant from individual voir dire proceedings is a structural error requiring automatic reversal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Over objection that it violated his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his trial on two hundred seventy-two felony charges, arising out of his prescribing opioids and other controlled substances to patients in his medical practice, Petitioner was excluded from individual voir dire of fifty-three prospective jurors on sensitive topics, conducted in the jury room, spanning parts of two days. Some courts have held it to be structural error requiring automatic reversal to exclude the accused from significant portions of voir dire proceedings. Many other courts have held it to be a constitutional violation that is subject to the harmless error standard, but those courts do not agree on how to make that calculation in this context. The court below held it was not structural error and, though error, it was harmless. This case, therefore, presents the following questions: L Is the exclusion of a criminal defendant from individual voir dire proceedings, in violation of his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his trial, a structural error which requires automatic reversal? I. If the exclusion of a criminal defendant from individual voir dire proceedings is not a structural error, how should the harmless error standard be applied in this context and was the error harmless in this case? ii PROCEEDINGS BELOW On September 28, 2021, the Ohio Supreme Court, in State of Ohio v. Frank D. Lazzerini, Case No. 2021-0918, declined to accept jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to Ohio Supreme Court Rule 7.08(B)(4)(a), constituting a determination that the appeal did not involve a substantial constitutional question and should be dismissed. App. at 1-2. On December 22, 2021, the Ohio Supreme Court denied reconsideration of that decision. App. at 3-4. On June 11, 2021, the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Ohio, Fifth Appellate District in State of Ohio v. Frank D. Lazzerini, No. 2019CA000142, 173 N.E. 3d 907 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2021) issued its judgment entry and opinion affirming Petitioner’s convictions and sentence. App at 6-105. On August 22, 2019 the Stark County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas issued its Judgment Entry of Conviction and Sentence in State of Ohio v. Frank D. Lazzerini, Stark County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2018CR00282. App at 106-151. On May 2, 2018, the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Ohio, Fifth Appellate District issued a judgment entry and opinion dismissing Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus alleging unlawful detention due to excessive bail in Lazzerini v. Maier, No. 2018 CA 00025, 111 N.E.3d 727 (5th 2018). Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(b)Gii), Lazzerini v. Maieris directly related to this matter as it arises from the same trial court case. That opinion is not included in the