Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

standard.  The Michigan state courts had ruled on the mer-
its of Mr. Davenport’s claim of error.  In doing so, they cor-
rectly identified this Court’s controlling harmless-error rule 
from Chapman.  And their conclusions involved neither an 
unreasonable application of Chapman nor an unreasonable 
determination  of  the  facts.  To  the  contrary,  the  District
Court  agreed  with  a  Magistrate  Judge’s  assessment  that
the  state-court  record  contained  no  evidence  “that  the  ju-
rors were influenced” by his restraints and “overwhelming
evidence  of  [Mr.  Davenport’s]  guilt.”  Davenport  v. 
MacLaren,  2016  WL  11262506,  *4  (WD  Mich.,  Nov.  7,
2016); see also Davenport v. MacLaren, 2017 WL 4296808, 
*1–*2  (WD  Mich.,  Sept.  26,  2017)  (citing  28  U. S. C. 
§ 2254(d)(1)). 

D 
After that loss, Mr. Davenport appealed to the Sixth Cir-
cuit,  where  a  divided  panel  reversed.    Davenport  v. 
MacLaren, 964 F. 3d 448 (2020).   

Unlike  the  District  Court,  the  Sixth  Circuit  declined  to 
analyze the case under AEDPA.  Instead, it held, only this 
Court’s decision in Brecht v. Abrahamson governed its re-
view.  Handed  down  before  Congress  adopted  AEDPA, 
Brecht sought to adapt Chapman’s harmless-error rule, de-
veloped for cases on direct appellate review, for use in fed-
eral  habeas  proceedings.  Brecht,  507  U. S.,  at  633–635. 
Citing the need to afford appropriate respect to final state-
court decisions that have already endured direct appeal, in-
cluding potential review in this Court, Brecht effectively in-
verted Chapman’s burden.  507 U. S., at 635.  Rather than 
require the prosecution to prove that a constitutional trial
error is harmless, Brecht held that a state prisoner seeking 
to challenge his conviction in collateral federal proceedings 
must show that the error had a “ ‘substantial and injurious 
effect or influence’ ” on the outcome of his trial.  Id., at 637.