Opinion ID: 464654
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gilbert Mandates a New Trial

Text: Frisco contends that testimony that Washington had made a pre-trial lineup identification of the accused was erroneously placed before the jury as part of the prosecution's case and thus cannot be considered harmless error and could not be cured by instructions to the jury. We agree. Under the mandate of Gilbert, [t]he state is not entitled to an opportunity to show that the testimony had an independent source. Id., 388 U.S. at 273, 87 S.Ct. at 1957. Rather, the accused is entitled to a new trial unless the state carries its burden of showing that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). To determine whether a new trial is required, the question becomes whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction. Chapman at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 827. If so, a new trial is mandated. In order to determine if the constitutional error in this case is of such magnitude as to require automatic reversal of the conviction, an examination must be made of the record below.