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:

I. 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?

II. 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?

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