Opinion ID: 2975506
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harmless-Error Review Looks

Text: to Actual, Not Hypothetical, Impact Characterizing an error as harmless might have either of two meanings. On the one hand, an error might be deemed harmless if it played such an inconsequential role in the actual trial in which it occurred that it assuredly had no impact on the trial’s verdict. 2 R. Hertz & J. Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice & Procedure § 31.4d (5th ed. 2005). On the other hand, an error might be deemed harmless—even if it played an important role in the actual trial—if a hypothetical new trial absent the error would likely produce the same outcome as did the actual trial. Id. The Supreme Court has indicated that of these two meanings the proper one is the first (i.e., whether the error had an actual impact on the outcome), and not the second (i.e., whether a hypothetical new trial would likely produce the same result): Consistent with the jury-trial guarantee, the question . . . the reviewing court [is] to consider is not what effect the constitutional error might generally be expected to have upon a reasonable jury, but rather what effect it had upon the guilty verdict in the case at hand. Harmless-error review looks, we have said, to the basis on which “the No. 03-3362 Wilson v. Mitchell Page 11 jury actually rested its verdict.” The inquiry, in other words, is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error. That must be so, because to hypothesize a guilty verdict that was never in fact rendered—no matter how inescapable the findings to support that verdict might be—would violate the jury-trial guarantee. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993) (citations omitted) (quoting Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 404 (1991)). Likewise, as the Brecht Court explained, “[t]he standard for determining whether habeas relief must be granted is whether . . . the . . . error ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Brecht, 507 U.S. at 623 (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946) (emphasis added)).