What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

Opinion:
HEDGPETH, WARDEN v. PULIDO
No. 07-544.
Argued October 15, 2008
Decided December 2, 2008
Jeremy Friedlander, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Manuel Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, and Peggy S. Rujfra, Supervising Deputy Attorney General.
Pratik A. Shah argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were former Solicitor General Clement, former Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Deborah Watson.
J. Bradley O’Connell, by appointment of the Court, 552 U. S. 1294, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Kent S. Scheidegger filed a brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Per Curiam.
A conviction based on a general verdict is subject to challenge if the jury was instructed on alternative theories of guilt and may have relied on an invalid one. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931); Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957). In this case the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that such an error is “structural error,” requiring that the conviction be set aside on collateral review without regard to whether the flaw in the instructions prejudiced the defendant. The parties now agree that the Court of Appeals was wrong to categorize this type of error as “structural.” They further agree that a reviewing court finding such error should ask whether the flaw in the instructions “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree as well and so hold.
Respondent Michael Pulido was convicted by a California jury of felony murder. On direct appeal, Pulido sought to vacate his conviction on the ground that the jury instructions were erroneous: They permitted the jury to find him guilty of felony murder if he formed the intent to aid and abet the underlying felony before the murder, but they also permitted the jury to find him guilty if he formed that intent only after the murder. The California Supreme Court agreed with Pulido that the latter theory was invalid under California law, but upheld the conviction on the ground that Pulido was not prejudiced by the error. People v. Pulido, 15 Cal. 4th 713, 727, 936 P. 2d 1235, 1243-1244 (1997). Pulido sought federal habeas relief, which the District Court granted after concluding that instructing the jury on the invalid theory had a “‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Pulido v. Lamarque, No. C 99-4933 CW (PR) (ND Cal., Mar. 24, 2005), App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a-66a (quoting Brecht, supra, at 637).
The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Pulido v. Chrones, 487 F. 3d 669 (2007) (per curiam). On appeal, Pulido argued the District Court’s Brecht analysis was correct, but in the alternative sought to avoid the harmless-error inquiry altogether. In support of that alternative argument, he maintained that when a jury returns a general verdict after being instructed on both a valid and an invalid theory, the conviction must be automatically set aside, without asking whether the invalid instruction was harmless. The Court of Appeals recognized that the Brecht “substantial and injurious effect” standard governs harmless-error analysis on federal habeas, 487 F. 3d, at 673, n. 3 (internal quotation marks omitted), but agreed with Pulido that instructing a jury on multiple theories of guilt, one of which is legally improper, was “structural” error exempting the instructions as a whole from harmless-error review, id., at 675-676. Such error instead required setting aside the conviction on habeas unless the reviewing court could determine with “ ‘absolute certainty’ ” that the defendant was convicted under a proper theory. Id., at 676 (quoting Lara v. Ryan, 455 F. 3d 1080, 1086 (CA9 2006)). Because the instructions “le[ft] open the possibility” that the jury convicted Pulido on the impermissible ground, the court concluded that the verdict must be reversed. 487 F. 3d, at 676. We granted certiorari. Chrones v. Pulido, 552 U. S. 1230 (2008).
The Ninth Circuit precedent on which the Court of Appeals relied, see Lara v. Ryan, supra, based its structural-error analysis upon a line of our cases beginning with Stromberg. Stromberg addressed the validity of a general verdict that rested on an instruction that the petitioner could be found guilty for displaying a red flag as “‘a sign, symbol, or emblem of opposition to organized government, or [a]s an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action, or [a]s [a]n aid to propaganda that is of a seditious character.’ ” 283 U. S., at 363. After holding that the first clause of the instruction proscribed constitutionally protected conduct, we concluded that the petitioner’s conviction must be reversed because “it [wa]s impossible to say under which clause of the [instruction] the conviction was obtained.” Id., at 368. In Yates v. United States, supra, we extended this reasoning to a conviction resting on multiple theories of guilt when one of those theories is not unconstitutional, but is otherwise legally flawed.
Both Stromberg and Yates were decided before we concluded in Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), that constitutional errors can be harmless. Accordingly, neither Stromberg nor Yates had reason to address whether the instructional errors they identified could be reviewed for harmlessness, or instead required automatic reversal. In a series of post -Chapman cases, however, we concluded that various forms of instructional error are not structural but instead trial errors subject to harmless-error review. See, e. g., Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1 (1999) (omission of an element of an offense);. California v. Roy, 519 U. S. 2 (1996) (per curiam) (erroneous aider and abettor instruction); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U. S. 497 (1987) (misstatement of an element of an offense); Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570 (1986) (erroneous burden shifting as to an element of an offense).
Although these cases did not arise in the context of a jury instructed on multiple theories of guilt, one of which is improper, nothing in them suggests that a different harmless-error analysis should govern in that particular context. To the contrary, we emphasized in Rose that “while there are some errors to which [harmless-error analysis] does not apply, they are the exception and not the rule.” Id., at 578. And Neder makes clear that harmless-error analysis applies to instructional errors so long as the error at issue does not categorically “ ‘vitiat[e] all the jury’s findings.’” 527 U. S., at 11 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 281 (1993) (erroneous reasonable-doubt instructions constitute structural error)). Aminstructional error arising in the context of multiple theories of guilt no more vitiates all the jury’s findings than does omission or misstatement of an element of the offense when only one theory is submitted.
In fact, drawing a distinction between alternative-theory error and the instructional errors in Neder, Roy, Pope, and Rose would be “patently illogical,” given that such a distinction “ ‘reduces to the strange claim that, because the jury ... received both a “good” charge and a “bad” charge on the issue, the error was somehow more pernicious than . . . where the only charge on the critical issue was a mistaken one.’ ” 487 F. 3d, at 677-678 (O’Scannlain, J., concurring specially) (quoting Quigley v. Vose, 834 F. 2d 14, 16 (CA1 1987) (per curiam)); see also Becht v. United States, 403 F. 3d 541, 548 (CA8 2005) (same), cert. denied, 546 U. S. 1177 (2006).
Pulido now agrees with the State that the Court of Appeals erred by treating the instructional error in this case as structural, and that the required prejudice analysis should be governed by Brecht’s “substantial and injurious effect” standard. See Brief for Respondent 17 (“[T]he Ninth Circuit was mistaken in its ‘structural defect’ nomenclature”); Tr. of Oral Arg. 27 (“We acknowledge that this is a trial error and is subject to the Brecht prejudice standard”). So do we.
Pulido nonetheless maintains we should affirm because the Court of Appeals effectively engaged in the Brecht analysis, despite its clear description of the error as “structural.” But despite full briefing on the applicability of Brecht, the Court of Appeals mentioned Brecht only briefly in a footnote, see 487 F. 3d, at 673, n. 3, and then went on to agree with Pulido’s alternative assertion that “the instructional error was structural and therefore not subject to harmless error review,” id., at 675-676. The court also stated that the conviction had to be overturned unless the court was “‘absolutely certain’ ” that the jury relied on a valid ground. Id., at 676. Such a determination would appear to be a finding that no violation had occurred at all, rather than that any error was harmless. In any event, an “absolute certainty” standard is plainly inconsistent with Brecht. Accordingly, we express no view on whether Pulido is entitled to habeas relief, but rather remand to the Court of Appeals for application of Brecht in the first instance.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The dissent maintains the Court of Appeals “undertook a searching review of the parties’ evidence and the jury instructions to determine the error’s effect on the jury.” Post, at 68 (opinion of Stevens, J.). But the Court of Appeals reached its conclusion based solely on the existence of a typographical error in the special circumstances instructions, without addressing any of the State’s arguments that the typographical error was harmless in light of the record as a whole. There was no need for that court to address those arguments, of course, because of its mistaken conclusion that the instructional error was structural. Under such circumstances, remand is the appropriate course.

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?

Choices:
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
U.S. Court of Military Review
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
U.S. Customs Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
U.S. Tax Court
Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
U.S. Court for China
U.S. Consular Courts
U.S. Commerce Court
Territorial Supreme Court
Territorial Appellate Court
Territorial Trial Court
Emergency Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Bankruptcy Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
Alaska U.S. District Court
Arizona U.S. District Court
Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
California Central U.S. District Court
California Eastern U.S. District Court
California Northern U.S. District Court
California Southern U.S. District Court
Colorado U.S. District Court
Connecticut U.S. District Court
Delaware U.S. District Court
District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
Florida Middle U.S. District Court
Florida Northern U.S. District Court
Florida Southern U.S. District Court
Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
Guam U.S. District Court
Hawaii U.S. District Court
Idaho U.S. District Court
Illinois Central U.S. District Court
Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
Kansas U.S. District Court
Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
Maine U.S. District Court
Maryland U.S. District Court
Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
Michigan Western U.S. District Court
Minnesota U.S. District Court
Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
Missouri Western U.S. District Court
Montana U.S. District Court
Nebraska U.S. District Court
Nevada U.S. District Court
New Hampshire U.S. District Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
New Mexico U.S. District Court
New York Eastern U.S. District Court
New York Northern U.S. District Court
New York Southern U.S. District Court
New York Western U.S. District Court
North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
North Dakota U.S. District Court
Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
Oregon U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
Rhode Island U.S. District Court
South Carolina U.S. District Court
South Dakota U.S. District Court
Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
Texas Northern U.S. District Court
Texas Southern U.S. District Court
Texas Western U.S. District Court
Utah U.S. District Court
Vermont U.S. District Court
Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
Virginia Western U.S. District Court
Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
Washington Western U.S. District Court
West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
Wyoming U.S. District Court
Louisiana U.S. District Court
Washington U.S. District Court
West Virginia U.S. District Court
Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
Alabama U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
Georgia U.S. District Court
Illinois U.S. District Court
Indiana U.S. District Court
Iowa U.S. District Court
Michigan U.S. District Court
Mississippi U.S. District Court
Missouri U.S. District Court
New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
New York U.S. District Court
North Carolina U.S. District Court
Ohio U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
Tennessee U.S. District Court
Texas U.S. District Court
Virginia U.S. District Court
Norfolk U.S. District Court
Wisconsin U.S. District Court
Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
California U.S. District Court
Florida U.S. District Court
Arkansas U.S. District Court
District of Orleans U.S. District Court
State Supreme Court
State Appellate Court
State Trial Court
Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
Middle Circuit (of the United States)
Southern Circuit (of the United States)
Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
Utah U.S. Circuit

Answer: 40