Document: 395 U.S. 250 89 S.Ct. 1726 23 L.Ed.2d 284 Glen Martin HARRINGTON, Petitioner,v.State of CALIFORNIA. No. 750. Argued April 23, 1969. Decided June 2, Roger S. Hanson, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. James H. Kline, San Marino, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 We held in Chapman v. California, 386 18, 87 824, 17 705 that 'before a federal constitutional error can be harmless, court must able to declare belief it was harmless beyond reasonable doubt.' Id., at 24, S.Ct., 828. said that, although 'there are some rights so basic fair trial their infraction never treated as error' (id., 827), not all 'TRIAL ERRORS WHICH VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTion automatically call reversaL.' Ibid. 2 The question whether alleged present case 'harmless' under rule arose state attempted robbery and first-degree murder. Four men were tried together—Harrington, Caucasian, Bosby, Rhone, Cooper, Negroes—over an objection by Harrington his should severed. Each three codefendants confessed confessions introduced with limiting instructions jury consider each confession only against confessor. Rhone took stand Harrington's counsel cross-examined him. other two did take stand.1 3 In Bruton United States, 391 123, 88 1620, 20 476, codefendant who used prosecution. had been denied Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment. Since is applicable well trials reason Due Process Fourteenth Amendment (Pointer Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 13 923), applies here. 4 California Court Appeal affirmed convictions, 256 Cal.App.2d 209, 64 Cal.Rptr. 159, Supreme petition hearing. granted certiorari violation on these special facts Chapman. 5 Petitioner made statements which fell short but placed him scene crime. He admitted Bosby trigger man; he fled three; after murder dyed hair black shaved off moustache. Several eyewitnesses petitioner But them previously told police four Negroes committed Rhone's confession, however, inside store gun time 6 Cooper's refer o name. referred fourth man 'the white boy' or 'this guy.' And described age, height, weight. 7 Bosby's likewise mention name blond-headed fellow guy' Patty.' 8 Both Cooper they see gun, variance testimony prosecution witnesses. 9 argues irrelevant named confessions, reference clear pointing shouting person dock Negroes. make same assumption. we conclude lack opportunity cross-examine constituted 10 whom cross-examined, himself agreed there. Others testified active participant. put hands when it.2 They place others, including himself, same. Their evidence, supplied through course cumulative. apart from overwhelming this doubt, unless adopt minority view (386 42—45, 836—838) departure procedures result automatic reversal, regardless weight evidence. 11 It argued reverse if imagine single juror whose mind might have up because otherwise would remained doubt unconvinced. do know jurors sat. Our judgment based our own reading record what seems us probable impact minds average jury. admonished Chapman, U.S., 827, giving too much emphasis 'overwhelming evidence' guilt, stating errors affecting substantial aggrieved party could considered harmless. By test cannot impute reversible confessions. 12 depart Chapman; nor dilute inference. reaffirm it. suggest evidence bearing ingredients crime tendered, use cumulative though tainted, error. decision record. woven circumstantial say no constitute error, leave conviction undisturbed. Affirmed. 14 BRENNAN, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting. 15 today overrules (1967), very purports apply. Far more fundamentally, severely undermines many Court's most significant decisions area criminal procedure. 16 recognized 'harmless-error rules work unfair mischievous results' narrowly circumscribed. 22, 827. emphasized '(a)n admitting plainly relevant possibly influenced adversely litigant * conceived harmless.' 23—24, . Ct. Thus, placing burden proof beneficiary And, left contribution conviction. 26, 829. then, meant compromise proposition constitutionally any extent shifting inquiry contributed untainted provided 'overwhelming' support puts aside firm resolve makes compromise. As result, deterrent effect such cases Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961); Griffin 609, 1229, 106 (1965); Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966); States Wade, 388 218, 1926, 18 1149 (1967); 476 (1968), actions both prosecutors, speak courts, will significantly undermined. holds offense may there This approach, expressly rejected supra, good reason. For, where concerns accumulation rather than tainted jury's decision, convictions resulting insulated attack. its nature, issue substantiality admits limited kind appellate review. often effectively vindication solely judges. If, instead, task courts appraise required, better protect deprivations defendants. focus character quality relates just amount 19 instant illustrates difference application between approach adopted set down At going participation robbery, presence Without admittedly unconstitutional prosecutor's consisted victims Rhone. weakened fact earlier participants self-serving certain aspects. arrest, found possession gun. On stand, explained given carried during commission robbery. ample establish still concluded proved doubt. implicating less tipped balance jurors' favor Certan ly, State has demonstrating contribute There need remind role applying standards sufficiency extremely limited. To apply threshold requirements raising challenges shield attack fundamental nature thus deprive defendants rights. I respectfully dissent. All participated employee killed. guilty felony sentenced life imprisonment. 'All persons aiding abetting first degree one kills while acting furtherance common design.' People Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777, 782, 44 442, 445, 402 P.2d 130, 133 (1966).

Category: 0