In Alvarez-Perdomo v. State , 454 P.3d 998, 999 (Alaska 2019), the Alaska
Supreme Court held that compelling a defendant to testify in violation of the
Fifth Amendment privilege was structural error. The questions presented are:

1. Does the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a "fair trial" implicitly require
that the trial be free of structural error? If so, to what extent can
structural error be established through juror testimony?

2. Do the following juror statements qualify as statements that violate
the plainest principles of justice in a criminal jury trial:

"we're supposed to look at everything, his wife
not in the courtroom supporting him, shows he is guilty."

"she can't even support him in the court room,
he must be guilty."

"she couldn't be in the courtroom because she could not
look him in the eye, so he must be guilty."

"I don't care what they say if a man won'[t] testify
for himself he is guilty."

"If he won't testify for himself he must be guilty."

"Anyone who won't testify for himself is guilty."

"Specifically I remember Joe Hayes announcing that if Larson did
not take the stand in his own defense he was guilty and the
other three jurors, the ballet dancer, the fireman from
Easter and the tall light haired man all agreeing."

"I also heard several jurors comment that they wished Larson
would get up and speak for himself and if not
it proved his guilt."

"Mr. Larson's attorney said Mr. Larson was not going to testify
for himself. That showed Mr. Larson was guilty of the crime."

Does the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a 'fair trial' implicitly require that the trial be free of structural error?