Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 325.0

164 

SMITH  v.  SPISAK 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

to  relief.  As  the  Court’s  discussion  in  Part  III  makes  viv­
idly  clear,  see  ante,  at  151–153,  Spisak’s  own  conduct  alien­
ated and ostracized the jury, and his crimes were monstrous. 
In  my  judgment  even  the  most  skillful  of  closing  argu­
ments—even one befitting Clarence Darrow—would not 
have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome 
in  this  case.  Similarly,  in  light  of  Spisak’s  conduct  before 
the jury and the gravity of the aggravating circumstances of 
the  offense,  the  instructional  error  was  also  harmless  be­
cause  it  did  not  have  a  substantial  and  injurious  effect  on 
this record, Brecht v.  Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623 (1993). 
Accordingly,  I  concur  in  the  judgment  and  concur  in  the 

Court’s discussion of prejudice in Part III of its opinion.