quotation marks omitted.) State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658, 722-24, 877 A.2d 696 (2005) (Katz, J., dissenting). We assume without deciding that the trial court, having found the defendant’s gender neutral explanation for his peremptory challenge to be credible, improperly required juror K.N. to be seated. As the discussion that follows demonstrates, we need not make such a determination because, even if the defendant could prevail as to that first step in our analysis, he cannot prevail under the second step. Accordingly, we turn to the second step, namely, whether that impropriety is a per se reversible, structural error or whether it is subject to a harmless error analysis and, if the latter, whether, because the juror remained an alternate, the error was harmless. The d 1994) (<HOLDING>); Ramseur v. Beyer, 983 F.2d 1215, 1225 n.6 (3d
holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding that harmless error analysis is inappropriate in a powers case holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis