(quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246), and forms the basis for the Government’s proof, the accused’s defense, and the trial court’s rulings. Indeed, whether a defendant decides to plead guilty .or instead exercises his right to trial by jury may depend on the charges he faces and his potential punishment. Thus, failing to notify a defendant of the crime of which he is accused “infect[s] the entire trial process,” Neder, 527 U.S. at 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827 (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)), and undermines any confidence that the sentence imposed reflects a just outcome. Further, inquiry into whether an error of this nature was harmless is inherently unreliable. See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 149 n. 4, 126 S.Ct. 2557 (<HOLDING>). Would Lewis have pled guilty if he had known
holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather  where objected to  is subject to harmless error analysis holding that it was reversible error for the trial court to consider cumulative error in assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel holding that errors not rising to level of plain error are to be considered in assessing cumulative error holding error was structural because of the difficulty of assessing the effect of the error holding that complete denial of summation amounts to structural error and that existing case law did not clearly establish the restriction of summation as structural error