Trial court wierdness on self-defense
The Indiana Supreme Court just reversed a homicide conviction where the trial court, for reasons not apparent, forbade the defendant to question jurors as to their attitudes on self defense, or to mention that defense in opening argument. The pdf (7 pages) is here. It sounds as if the trial court also ordered forbade defendant to put on evidence of self-defense, but relented at some point and let him at least use his own testimony to that effect.
Even stranger, the defense attorney did not object. The Supremes however regarded this as fundamental error and reversed notwithstanding the lack of objection. If self-defense was a defense, the defendant was entitled to question jurors during their selection to see if they had any feelings aganst self-defense.