I heard someone conclude that Dan Brewington's conviction was upheld because his lawyer made a mistake. That is not accurate.
The Indiana supreme court did say that his lawyer "invited error", but the errors were that the Indiana legislature passed an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, the grand jury brought a vague indictment, the prosecutor brought unconstitutional charges, the judge incorrectly instructed the jury, and the appellate court flagrantly misstated the facts and the applicable constitutional principles. That is what the high court decided.
When any of those things happen, the conviction is usually reversed and the defendant goes free. The prosecutor can still try him again, by getting a new indictment and doing it right.
But sometimes the high court does not want to let a dangerous criminal out on a technicality, so it rules that there was "harmless error", and sufficient evidence to convict the man anyway. However even the vindictive Indiana judges could not really say that the constitutional violations were "harmless". So they said that the defense lawyer "invited" the error by not anticipating the erroneous appellate court and not providing a sufficient trial record for the Indiana supreme court to uphold the conviction on harmless error.
Yeah, it still doesn't make sense. When judges are out to screw you, they can usually find a way.