presence, to question the prosecution witnesses, and to require any favorable witnesses to testify for the defense). On review in Antrim, we declined to apply the harmless-error standard, holding that the waiver requirements of rule 26.01 are to be strictly construed. Id. at 70-71. Other decisions of this court have also declined to apply a harmless-error analysis to certain types of error. See Halseth, 653 N.W.2d at 786 (classifying the rights set forth in rule 26.01, subd. 3, as fundamental rights that must be personally and explicitly. waived); State v. Ehmke, 752 N.W.2d 117, 123 (Minn.App.2008) (“[W]hen the record fails to establish a valid waiver of the rights specified in rule 26.01, subd. 3, ... a new trial is necessary.”); State v. Knoll, 739 N.W.2d 919, 922 (Minn.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). We have applied the harmless-error analysis
holding that a defendant who agrees to a lothenbach trial under rule 2601 subdivision 4 must expressly waive the fundamental rights listed in subdivision 3 and failure to do so requires reversal holding that a volunteer fire department which was a nonprofit corporation was an agency of a political subdivision for the purposes of the flsa recognizing that a board of elections is not a political subdivision and its members are not county officers holding that the university was not a political subdivision of the state because it had no power to tax or cause taxes to be levied holding that where a defendant abandoned a vehicle in a subdivision near where the victims body was found there was sufficient evidence of intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle