Document: 127 S. Ct. 2321 (2007) John Francis FRY, Petitioner, v. Cheryl K. PLILER, Warden. No. 06-5247. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 20, 2007. Decided June 11, *2323 Victor Haltom, Sacramento, CA, for petitioner. Ross C. Moody, respondent. Patricia A. Millett, the States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Counsel Record, R. Duree, Petitioner. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General California, Dane Gillette, Chief Assistant General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor Gerald Engler, Senior Donald E. De Nicola, Deputy Peggy Ruffra, Supervising *2324 San Francisco, Respondent. Justice SCALIA delivered opinion Court. We decide whether a federal habeas court must assess prejudicial impact constitutional error in state-court criminal trial under "substantial and injurious effect" standard set forth Brecht Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 1710, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993), when state appellate failed to recognize did not review it harmlessness "harmless beyond reasonable doubt" Chapman 386 18, 87 824, 17 705 (1967). I After two mistrials on account hung juries, third jury convicted petitioner 1992 murders James Cynthia Bell. At trial, sought attribute one or more other persons. To that end, he offered testimony several witnesses who linked Anthony Hurtz killings. But excluded additional witness, Pamela Maples, was prepared testify she had heard discussing homicides bearing some resemblance murder Bells. In court's view, defense provided insufficient evidence link incidents described which charged. Following his conviction, appealed California Appeal, arguing (among things) exclusion Maples' deprived him fair opportunity defend himself, violation Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 93 1038, 35 297 (1973) (holding combination erroneous evidentiary rulings rose level due process violation). Without explicitly addressing petitioner's argument, held abused its discretion excluding California's rules, adding "no possible prejudice" could have resulted light "merely cumulative" nature testimony. People Fry, A072396 (Ct.App.Cal., 1st App. Dist., Mar. 30, 2000), 97, n. 17. The specify harmless-error applying concluding suffered prejudice." denied discretionary review, then seek writ certiorari from this Petitioner next filed petition corpus District Eastern raising aforementioned due-process claim others). case initially assigned Magistrate Judge, ultimately recommended denying relief. He found failure be "an unreasonable application clearly established law Court," 180, disagreed with finding nevertheless concluded "there ha[d] been an showing improper Ms. Maples substantial effect jury's verdict" Brecht. 181-182. adopted Judge's findings recommendations full, divided panel Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed. granted certiorari. 549 ___, 763, 166 590 (2006). *2325 II A Chapman, supra, reached direct judgment, we can considered harmless only if is "able declare belief doubt." Id., at 24, 824. Brecht, applies collateral judgment 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Citing concerns about finality, comity, federalism, rejected favor forgiving applied nonconstitutional errors appeal convictions. See Kotteakos States, 328 750, 66 1239, 90 1557 (1946). Under standard, unless "`had influence determining verdict.'" 631, 1710 (quoting Kotteakos, 776, 1239). question unconstitutional during even has found, doubt Chapman.[1] begin Court's primary reasons gave adopting less onerous judgments turn itself conducted review. explained would "undermin[e] States' interest finality," U.S., 637, 1710; "infring[e] upon [the States'] sovereignty over matters," ibid.; undercut historic limitation relief those "`grievously wronged,'" "impos[e] significant `societal costs,'" ibid. Mechanik, 475 66, 72, 106 938, 89 50 (1986)). Since each these equal force reaches question, illogical make contingency. assumed apply virtually all 2254 cases. It suggested exception "unusual case" "a deliberate especially egregious type, combined pattern prosecutorial misconduct ... infect[s] integrity proceeding." 638, 9, 1710. This, course, nothing do concurring dissenting opinions shared assumption almost always former stated categorical terms "Kotteakos standard" "will now review" convictions, 643, (STEVENS, J., concurring). White's dissent complained where (as case) occurred," 644, *2326 O'Connor's longer appl[y] any asserted habeas," 651, Later cases also Brecht's applicability does recognized question. Penry Johnson, 532 782, 795, 121 1910, 150 9 (2001); Calderon Coleman, 525 141, 145, 119 500, 142 521 (1998) (per curiam). Petitioner's contrary position misreads (or least exaggerates significance of) lone passage our opinion. passage, explained: "State courts are fully qualified identify evaluate often occupy superior vantage point error. For reasons, scarcely seems logical require engage identical approach requires review." 636, (citation omitted). quoted little advance position. say (a) since required makes no sense establish (b) whenever fails responsibility change. foolish equate two, view weighty given reviewreasons having actually Chapman. argues that, eliminated altogether. That necessarily so. rule class available same not. occasion resolve hypothetical (and highly unrealistic) now. before us obtain claim; simply underlying weak therefore measure attempted analogybetween (1) eliminating altogether (2) providing but rejecting without assessing Chapmanis false one. contends rule, post-Brecht developments different Three years after decided Congress passed, President signed, Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), may adjudication "resulted decision to, involved of, Federal law, determined ...." 2254(d)(1). Mitchell Esparza, 540 12, 124 7, 157 263 (2003) curiam), determines harmless, award determination unreasonable. 2254(d)(1), interpreted eliminates requirement satisfy standard. think conclusion *2327 reason point. Nor text AEDPA, sets precondition grant ("a shall granted" conditions 2254(d) met), entitlement it. Given frequent recognition AEDPA limited rather than expanded availability relief, see, e.g., Williams Taylor, 529 362, 412, 120 1495, 146 389 (2000), implausible saying so, replaced "`actual prejudice,'" Lane, 474 438, 449, 725, 88 814 (1986)), liberal AEDPA/Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt said, certainly formal both tests (AEDPA/Chapman Brecht) latter obviously subsumes former. Accordingly, correct trial.[2] B provides still reverse below because substantially injuriously affected verdict case. however, fairly encompassed within presented. Courts Appealswhether appropriate first court. Compare, Bains Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 976-977 (C.A.9 Orndorff Lockhart, 998 F.2d 1426, 1429-1430 (C.A.8 1993). true second sentence presented asks: "Does matter employed?" Pet. Cert. I. ask real difference misapplied particular understood this. Only brief footnote hint erred 23, 19.[3] Indeed, facts were presented, so too there *2328 place. all, "matter employed" Unlike JUSTICES, whom ground harmful vacate unclear instance, read avoid tangential factbound questions, limit governing * hold proceedings 353, reviewed 705. correctly affirm below. ordered. STEVENS, SOUTER GINSBURG join, BREYER joins part, part part. While join except Part II-B, am persuaded should answer announced (1993). parties curiae briefed argued presumably appears fit awkwardly drafted agreed review.[1] Moreover, emphasize important (1946), imposes burden persuasion State. Both history litigation provide powerful support jurors they concerning guilt. guilty until tried three times. ended mistrial deadlocked 6 6. 121. jury, time 7 5 conviction. Ibid. deliberating 11 days, foreperson advised judge split "`hopelessly deadlocked.'" 74-75. When instructed continue deliberations, requested clarification definition "reasonable 75. *2329 deliberated 23 days exchangea total five weeksbefore finally returning verdict.[2] surprising harbored guilt weeks into their deliberations. person offer eyewitness testimony, disinterested truckdriver, killer man 5'7" 5'8" tall, weighed 140 pounds, full head hair. Tr. 4574 (Apr. 26, 1995). 6'2" 300 pounds murder, bald. Doc. 13, Exh. L (arrest report); Ibid., M (petitioner's driver's license). Seven killings named Hurtz, testifying admitted them fact killer. 60-64, 179. Each witnesses, unlike impeached bias, either against 61-64, 73, 179-180. However, cousin Hurtz's respects trials. During testified out presence overheard statements committed double strikingly similar witnessed truckdriver. As Judge lack foundation clear (1973), argue otherwise.[3] Cf. Skipper South Carolina, 476 1, 8, 1669, 1 (1986) ("The quite naturally much greater weight jury"). prejudicial. said "does stand proposition defendant himself excludes favorable evidence." Scheffer, 523 303, 316, 118 1261, 413 (1998). Rather, considerations sway rules "undermine[s] fundamental elements defendant's defense." 315, 1261. Hence, inference, well-nigh impossible reviewing conclude such "did very slight verdict. 764, 1239; see O'Neal McAninch, 513 432, 445, 115 992, 130 947 (1995) ("[W]hen grave affects rights, relief"). difficult imagine commonsense proposition. Parker *2330 Gladden, 385 363, 468, 420 (1966) 26 hours juror deliberations "indicat[ed] among petitioner." 365, 468. Here, third-party guilt, length weeks, hours. jurors' evident uncertainty, prospect rebutting near-conclusive presumption harm vanishes completely.[4] shy emphasizing lightly find Carey Musladin, 649, 482 follows error, discount significance. "fair assurance, pondering happened stripping action whole, swayed error." 765, 1239. "all happened" case, cannot agree Circuit's Appeals. BREYER, proper id., time, STEVENS consider "Chambers prejudicial." Ante, 2329 (opinion part) (citing (1973)). Kyles Whitley, 514 419, 435, 1555, 131 490 (similar statement Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 10 215, (1963)). Nonetheless, remand reversing My arises here, purposes deciding exists, inextricably tied aspects determination. issue weighing probative value *2331 proffered against, cumulative nature, tendency confuse prejudice likelihood will waste time. 96-97; Cal. Evid.Code Ann. 352 (West 1995); cf. Fed. Rule Evid. 403. context, take way extent which) misweighed relevant admissibility factors doing harmed defendant. kind it, preclude possibility error; guarantee contrary. garden-variety non-harmless misapplication principles normally rise constitutional, Chambers, mistake. Cf., 308, All this, me, reconsideration amounted us, ante, 2325, Court). logically inseparable us; believe, sufficient. taking points raises, 2328-2330, reconsider sufficiently serious violate Chambers. STEVENS' NOTES [1] comes assume (without deciding) affirming 302, (1973). determine notwithstanding ambiguous [2] regarding finality difficulty retrying crime "have largely alleviated [AEDPA]," "sets strict limitations petitions limits successive well." Brief Innocence Network 7. Even governed span decade, nearly 12-year gap between conviction issuance illustrates. [3] included issue: "[I]f applies, bear prejudice?" previously "in virtual equipoise error" "treat verdict...." (1995). majority refer O'Neal, Neither conceded throughout proceeding bears persuasion. Thus, basis ignored O'Neal. arguably nonetheless ("All remains entitled According data compiled National Center Courts, average capital 12 Survey (California), States Jury Improvement Efforts (2007), online http://www.ncsconline.org/D_ research/cjs/xls/SOSJAData/CA_JA_ State.xls visited 2007, Clerk file). noncapital speculated perhaps longest deliberation Solano County. 5315 (June 5, remarked, "[j]ust how many execution style involving female driver shot male passenger parked car community proximate victims' herein?" [4] Fields, 483 313, 379 (C.A.5 2007) (Benavides, II-A-I dissenting, judgment) ("Courts unwilling record, affirmatively shows struggled verdict"); Kennedy Lockyer, 1041, 1056, 18 2004) ("From mistrial, well considerable amount infer defendant's] innocence close trials"); Powell Collins, 332 376, 401 (C.A.6 2003) (finding told "`at stalemate'"); Varoudakis, 233 113, (C.A.1 2000) (noting, harmlessness, "the `impasse' note reveals uncertainty guilt"); Ottersburg, 76 137, (C.A.7 1996) easy one"); Medina Barnes, 71 369 (C.A.10 1995) (basing "at indicated might unable reach unanimous verdict").

Category: 0