John Francis FRY v. Cheryl K. Pliler, Warden (551 U.S. 112)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 11, 2007 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 551 U.S. 112 · 127 S. Ct. 2321
- Decided
- June 11, 2007
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. We decide whether a federal habeas court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the “substantial and injurious effect” standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrakamson, 507 U. S. 619 (1993), when the state appellate court failed to recognize the error and did not review it for harmlessness under the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967). I After two mistrials on account of hung juries, a third jury convicted petitioner of the 1992 murders of James and Cynthia Bell. At trial, petitioner sought to attribute the murders to one or more other persons. To that end, he offered testimony of several witnesses who linked one Anthony Hurtz to the killings. But the trial court excluded the testimony of one additional witness, Pamela Maples, who was prepared to testify that she had heard Hurtz discussing homicides bearing some resemblance to the murder of the Bells. In the trial court’s view, the defense had provided insufficient evidence to link the incidents described by Hurtz to the murders for which petitioner was charged. Following his conviction, petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, arguing (among other things) that the trial court’s exclusion of Maples’ testimony deprived him of a fair opportunity to…
Excerpt of a 15,625-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.