U.S. at 468-69, 117 S.Ct. 1544 (gathering “very limited class of cases” that present structural errors). Thus, it is hard to believe that the Supreme Court would re quire all indictment defects to be noticed under the fourth prong of Olano when they do not even qualify as structural errors that affect a defendant’s substantial rights under prong three. In Johnson, the petitioner argued that Olano did not apply because the error she complained of was structural. Id. at 466, 117 S.Ct. 1544. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and stated that “the seriousness of the error claimed does not remove consideration of it from the ambit of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Id. The Court went on to apply Olano based on the specific facts of the case. See id. at 469-70, 117 S.Ct. 1544 (<HOLDING>). Indictment defects will justify recognition
holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that even if the error complained of was structural and affected substantial rights the fourth prong of olano was not met because of the overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted evidence of petitioners guilt recognizing categorical approach to structural errors that presumptively satisfy the third prong of olano and listing classes of cases that present structural errors holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because of overwhelming evidence of guilt