Document: 474 U.S. 438 106 S.Ct. 725 88 L.Ed.2d 814 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.James C. LANE and Dennis R. Lane. James Lane, Petitioner v. STATES. Nos. 84-744, 84-963. Argued Oct. 9, 1985. Decided Jan. 27, 1986. Rehearing Denied March 31, See 475 1104, 1507. Syllabus Lane his son Dennis, respondents in No. were indicted on counts for, inter alia, mail fraud connection with insurance claims that made insurers paid for fire damage to a restaurant duplex had hired professional arsonist burn. The was operated by partnership others. Count 1 charged regard fire. owned different partnership, of which one the partners. Counts 2 through 4 both related 5 conspiracy commit third arson scheme, 6 perjury before grand jury. Federal District Court denied respondents' pretrial motions severance alleged ground offenses misjoined violation Rule Criminal Procedure 8(b), provides two or more defendants may be same indictment if they are have participated "in act transaction series acts transactions constituting an offense offenses." trial then proceeded jointly When evidence relating admitted, court instructed jury not consider against repeated this instruction final charge admonished each count defendant separately. returned convictions all counts. Appeals reversed remanded new trials, holding joinder other five violated 8(b) such misjoinder prejudicial per se. court, however, rejected contention there insufficient support under because mailing occurred after payment been received thus scheme defraud reached fruition. Held: 1. Misjoinder is subject harmless-error analysis reversible error An involving "affects substantial rights" requires retrial only results actual prejudice it "had injurious effect influence determining jury's verdict." Kotteakos United States, 328 750, 776, 66 1239, 1253, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). It 52(a)—which any "which does affect rights shall disregarded"—can brought into harmony. Here, face overwhelming guilt, claimed harmless. provided proper limiting instructions, and, moreover, would likely admissible joint show James' intent Evidence 404(b). Any therefore failed "substantial influence" verdict. Pp. 444-450. 2. There sufficient 4. On could properly find mailings 3 took place while overall still continuing completed until 4, mailing, as others, intended "lull" insurer false sense security. 451-453. 735 F.2d 799 (CA5 1984), remanded. BURGER, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, Part III BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined. J., filed concurring part dissenting part, post, p. 453. 465. Bruce Neil Kuhlik, Washington, D.C., Clifford W. Brown, Lubbock, Tex., Chief Justice BURGER Court. We granted certiorari resolve conflict among Circuits whether 8 Rules rule,1 determine case 18 U.S.C. § 1341. * A. three partners opened El Toro Restaurant Amarillo, Texas, summer 1978. business never at profit, sales began decline fall. In November, purchased covering building's contents improvements losses. Simultaneously, he Sidney Heard, arsonist, burn building order escape lease partnership. February 1979, Heard set caused smoke contents. first settled improvements. He submitted income statement falsely indicated profit. After adjuster mailed insurer's headquarters, interruption claim. early 1980, again moving vacant lot Amarillo. obtained policy building, listing owner L & Properties, between Andrew Lawson. accomplice Heard's burned May 1, 1980. Thereafter, occasions signed proof-of-loss repairs them adjuster, who issued drafts return totaling $12,000.2 Each time, later headquarters. settlement draft $12,250 September 16, Two days later, memorandum headquarters explaining why exceeded previous estimates some $10,000. enclosed invoices supplied various materials furniture purportedly repair refurbish duplex. fact, these fabricated secretary. Lanes Lawson met several weeks discuss proposal establish flower shop Texas. picked out suitable July Heard's, William Lankford, prepared fictitious merchandise artificial flowers August. insured $50,000. arrested unrelated crime, planned place. 7 1981, Amarillo newspaper article connected Heard; day, canceled policy. 12, appeared federal investigating Heard. testified nothing do own dealings Lankford. B multiple 1341, 371, 1623. fire, plan. 6, 9 Prior Northern contending but App. 21. judge charge, together regarding separate consideration given count. Ibid. renewed their end Government's close evidence, denied. 10 appeal, argued occurred.3 Fifth Circuit concluded agreed "that should joined others 6." 799, 803-804 (1984). refused argument error, any, harmless, stating "Rule se circuit." Id., 806 (citing States Levine, 546 658 1977)). Lanes' trials. 11 At received, fruition.4 distinguished our Maze, 414 395, 94 645, 38 603 (1974), instead relied Sampson, 371 75, 83 173, 136 (1962), hold occurring receipt nevertheless execution fraud" required 1341 where "designed lull victims security postpone investigation." F.2d, 807-808. 12 found "infer did lulling effect" helped persuade "the legitimate." 808. emphasized forms shortly issuance drafts, might alerted possibility fraud. Similarly, "gave impression perfectly innocent claim." 13 petition rehearing 741 1381 certiorari, 469 1206, 105 1167, 84 318 (1985). reverse affirm part. II 14 held "is inherently prejudicial."5 804. divided question automatic reversal, rule governs.6 Most adopted approach McElroy 164 76, 17 41 355 (1896), applied statute force tried rejecting no showing prejudice. 81, S.Ct., 33. 15 McElroy, decided long adoption 52, prior enactment statute, 28 2111, appeal we ignore "errors defects parties." Under 52(a), similarly disregarded."7 16 Court's Chapman California, 386 18, 87 824, 705 (1967), significant change law harmless error. There, Black, speaking even "some constitutional errors [may] deemed requiring reversal conviction." 22, 827. rule, stated: "We urged petitioners errors, regardless facts circumstances, must always harmful. . adopt rule." 21-22, 826-827 (emphasis added). Black went note 50 follow approach, 19 ago its Congress established judgments 'errors parties.' 2111. None rules distinguishes state statutes rules." 827 (footnote omitted). 20 Since Chapman, "consistently clear duty reviewing record whole including most violations." Hasting, 461 499, 509, 103 1974, 76 96 (1983). 21 "given myriad safeguards assure fair trial, taking account reality human fallibility participants, can thing error-free, perfect Constitution guarantee trial." 508-509, 22 case, applying stronger specific standards themselves magnitude.8 Clearly, Hasting dictate governs here.9 23 applicability also follows from (1946), similar hand. 32 conspiracy, when fact least eight conspiracies. Nineteen tried, seven convicted. resulting variance indictment, case. Emphasizing numerous conspiracies defendants, well seriously flawed light defendants' "right en masse conglomeration distinct offenses" involved. 775, 1252. 24 Although review perspective rather than misjoinder, recognized implicated, suggested apply context.10 774-775, 25 A directly apply. Schaffer 362 511, 80 945, 921 (1960), groups participating criminal group defendants. making proper. dismissed motion concluding trial; affirmed. This originally justified turn[ed] lack evidence." 516, 948. Essentially, point standards. Nevertheless, once requirements allegations thereafter controlled entirely 14, 515-516, 947-948. affirmed finding reach initially satisfied, language surely assumed applicable. 26 plain reading cases shows holding. Applying 1919 treated Kotteakos, governed "technical errors," 391 (1946 ed.), "was simple: To substitute judgment application U.S., 759-760, 1245. "In influenced conviction examination proceedings entirety, tempered rigid stare decisis what has done situations." 762, 1246. flatly particular "any attempt create generalized presumption contrary spirit [the statute] expressed legislative sponsors." 765, 1248. 27 discussed current enacted 1949 deleted qualifying word "technical" rule. refusing "fashion hard-and-fast formula [the] [wa]s matter law." Citing pointed "[t]he dissent test injury 'depends special circumstances case.' " 517, 948 (quoting 777, 1254 (Douglas, dissenting)).11 common courts, trials "conserve funds, diminish inconvenience witnesses public authorities, avoid delays bringing those accused crime Bruton 123, 134, 1620, 1627, 476 (1968). accommodates interests protecting joinder. But read mean whenever satisfied. 29 focuses "affect[ed] rights." construed language, observed: 30 "The inquiry cannot merely enough result, apart phase affected rather, so, itself influence. If left grave doubt, stand." 31 Invoking test, 1253. Only so bring 52(a) "into harmony, square conflict."12 Of course, "we records evaluate claim, sparingly, [but] plainly authority so." 510, 1981 33 guilt shown here, satisfied introduced, instruction, Moreover, Lane's supra, 1248.13 34 Respondents challenge sufficiency sustain convictions. 1341,14 "mailings" "for purpose executing scheme." Kann 323 88, 94, 65 148, 151, 89 (1944). Mailings goods within "were designed security, ultimate complaint make apprehension less taken place." 403, 650. (1962). 35 issue. argue irrevocable payment, came fruition.15 misconstrues nature based events surrounding relate concerning partial payments scheme. earliest, last finally Hence, clearly continuing. 36 reasonably (as earlier ones) security.16 defraud," scheme's completion, id., 23, further facilitate concealment scheme" covered statute.17 24. 37 Appeals, ordering action consistent opinion. ordered. 39 40 I agree join erred write separately, my reasons reaching conclusion differ Court's, STEVENS instance Appeals. Act 26, (1919 Act), Stat. 1181, amended 269 Judicial Code. part: 42 "On hearing writ civil criminal, give entire without technical defects, exceptions (1925-1926 ed.). 43 1949, provision reenacted form now instructs appellate courts "give incorporated Procedure, "[a]ny defect, irregularity disregarded." also, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 61 ("The every stage proceeding disregard defect parties"). 2111 refer defects" "technical," alter substantive legal test. H.R.Rep. 352, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., (1949), U.S.Code Cong.Serv. 1248 (§ "[i]ncorporates" former statute); Advisory Committee'sNotes Crim.Proc. U.S.C.App., 657 (Rule "restatement existing law"). 44 Act, provide disregarded unless litigation presents straightforward statutory construction: phrase parties" mean? 84-744 contend term refers class essential "affect" appeal. According respondents, rights," reversible. 45 For follow, conclude entail process classification, whereby "substantial" affecting automatically Rather, casts doubt outcome proceeding. words, (most importantly exception errors), require procedural errors. As none applicable 8, concur result 46 Reference "affected invented 1919. commonly used throughout 19th century express warrant reversal. However, generally understood refer, respecting rights, fairness calling reliability result. See, e.g., Connors 158 408, 411, 414, 951, 952, 953, 1033 (1895); Maish Arizona, 599, 602, 193, 195, 567 (1896); Williams 168 382, 390-398, 92, 95-98, 509 (1897); American Surety Co. Pauly, 170 133, 159, 552, 562, 977 (1898); McCabe Steen Constr. Wilson, 209 275, 279, 558, 560, 52 788 (1908); Holmgren 217 523-524, 588, 591-592, 54 861 (1910). "affect way prejudicial. 47 careful demonstrates understanding indictments assaults arson. Three yet fourth another assault. charges, noted "it confine offence restrict transaction" "[i]n felony, multiplication charges considered objectionable tending confound defence, him challenges. ." 80, 32. "Necessarily deprived right action, having objected to, revisable error." context, restates common-law prejudices defendant. right" reason, "[i]t said [a improper joinder] embarrassed prejudiced attention distracted passing upon independent transactions." kind presumed affects II, irrebuttable inconsistent subsequent jurisprudence overruled. moment, important suggests requirement anything 48 Absent indication, then, seem logical "affect[s] meant cast verdict, history confirms intended. 49 primary impetus practice jurisdictions reversing 758-759, 1244-1245, concern over particular. 913, 65th 3d (1919) 611, 62d 2d (1912)). large number reversals resulted failure scrutinize criticized leaders profession, Taft, Pound, Wigmore, Hadley. 1244-1245. prolonged consideration, responded criticism Act. House Report accompanying explained: 'It bill enact, far concerned, rendered merits permitting procedure below presuming appear necessity complaining party.' 2) 51 theme limited history. example, version pass Representatives explained meaning quoting President Taft: 'No except [sic] affirmatively say led verdict.' 61st (1911) Administration Law, Yale L.J. (1905)). "did parties, real adjudicated ibid. O'Gorman New York Supreme "[o]ne gravest faults present mode ease frequency technicalities merits"); 1218, 63d Sess. (1914); 264, 64th (1916). Our decision forecloses remaining questions interpretation expressly determination "what technical, rights; really latter hurtfully." 761, Act's command overturn unless, examining whole, concludes Rutledge's explanation, includes description evaluating worth repeating: 53 "It comes down very admonition: 'Do technicality hurt party whose affects.' "Easier observe. This, general; discrimination transcending confinement precise That faculty ever wholly imprisoned much criterion hurtfully. Judgment, play along intelligence, varies judges circumstance. What another; minor unimportant setting crucial another. 55 56 situations. Necessarily character proceeding, stake outcome, relation asserted casting balance material factors judgment. 57 58 "If, done, sure jury, slight effect, verdict stand, perhaps departure norm Congress. say, assurance, pondering happened stripping erroneous substantially swayed impossible affected. 760-765, 1245-1248 (citations footnotes omitted).1 59 exceptions. First, importantly, Due Process Clauses Fourteenth Amendments 52(a). (1967); Thus, stricter counterpart. Compare, 24, 828 (prosecution "harmless beyond reasonable doubt"), (error leaves "grave doubt" effect).2 addition, may, excluded operation Neither applies however. ordinarily rise level violation,3 either provisions indicates chose scrutiny.4 60 STEVENS' recognizes exceptions: (1) "when value besides [harmless-error] inappropriate," (2) harmlessness measured precision." Post, 474. cites additional involved correct asserting provisions. need decide conclude, that—like exceptions—neither misjoinder. protect values easily disposed of. recognition confuse lead inferences habitual criminality association. Apart this, serve "an outcome" justifying principle. Surely maintained fundamental 'infect[s] validity underlying itself, integrity obtained.' 474, n. Rose Lundy, 455 544, 102 1198, 1216, 71 379 (1982) (STEVENS, dissenting)). 62 precision closer consideration. previously noted, safely routinely inquire possible considering just perform rulings.5 sure, problems confusion arising substantial. quite easy crimes accused's association that, applied, misjoinders will difficult ascertain present. Whatever had, precedential greatly eroded disapproves presumptions, 457-458, decisions Kotteakos.6 Today, adherence view stand stark unjustified anomaly, leading sort unnecessary inspired extent states holding, overrule it. 63 goes question. respectfully dissent. begin with, "[u]ndertaking useful function perform." 476. 520, 2, 1986, (opinion J.); see Connecticut Johnson, 460 73, 102, 969, 985, 74 823 (1983) (POWELL, dissenting). Having required, I, like think remand better position study complete care. 64 apparent perfunctory effort inadequate. tells us simply here. Ante, 450. "examination entirety" called Kotteakos? "ponde[r] whole," Obviously, existence relevant "effect decision." 764, 1247. thought equally obvious least, magnitude context for; done. "would admissible" clear, irrelevant. actually place, hypothetical proceedings. 762-765, 1246-1248. Harmless-error excuse overlooking convinced defendant's guilt. make, concerned solely body. Traynor California wrote evaluation tasks complex." Traynor, Riddle Harmless Error (1970). task manifestly ill-equipped undertake. 516-518, 1984-1985 judgment). undertake task. whom MARSHALL joins, 67 provides: 68 "Harmless Error. (Emphasis added.) 69 presented prohibited rights.1 opinion, answered incorrectly; unfortunately confuses clarifies 70 central is, construe Procedure. history, purpose, Rule. offenses, "a right." 32, (1896). kinds Five committed April 1894, 1894. essentially objection Government confessed unanimously trial.2 majority occurred, concluded: 72 73 almost half squarely protection right," dispute Instead, suggests, obliquely, developments undermined holding: 8; passage statute; (3) development doctrine law. 444-446. reliance addressed detail. construing majority's bare citation it—and passage—must considered. 75 seems McElroy. 444. Far disavowing continued notes Committee subdivisions represent "substantially restatement text nor Notes, contains suggestion Indeed, displayed keen awareness precedent citing discussion misjoinder.3 time being considered, commentators shared Committee's form, restated law.4 principle deprives "revisable error" remained became effective 1946. Furthermore, reads conjunction immediately draftsmen regarded authorizes grant severance, absence violation, defendants.5 violations prejudicial, joinders forbidden demonstrate Professor Charles Wright interpreted 1969 treatise. wrote: 77 "Indeed concept obtain him. relief joinder, theory though initial improper. true, pointless define limits since longer significance complied advised allow unlimited power prejudicial." Wright, Practice 144, 329 (1969).6 78 Other structure strongly supports viewed prejudicial.7 79 adopted, restate then-existing law, conviction. addition unexplained reference rule—that justify error—is supported Specifically, observes ante, 444, 445. distinguish categories, analysis. category, remotely bald assertion 81 points out, terms rights."8 already curious concludes, all, allowed correction somehow changed status described precisely words. especially remembered governing 82 passed reaction hypertechnicality developed jurisprudence, mark system's error.9 leap 1919—and 1946 summarily jettisoned interpretations accorded mission. Frankfurter violation: "Suffice indicate, student behind 1919, knows, prevent matters mere etiquette formalities minutiae touching Bruno 308 287, 294, 198, 200, 257 (1939). And, significant,10 continuation benchmark assessing proposition anyone something right. neither few years reflected 8. are, contrast, 445, misplaced. observes: "Clearly, here." 446. Nothing clear. involve claim enunciated settle issue raised Simply nonconstitutional analysis, held.11 mission first, discern definitive answer question, end.12 answer, try assess statute. not, rewrite adopting nonconstitutional, inquiry. 85 observes, willingness invoke expanded dramatically recent years. expansion source considerable concern,13 particularly often unclear imprecise increasingly frequent invocation error.14 view, inappropriate situations: rule; inappropriate;15 precision.16 falls category. elements second third. implicates individual responsibility deep abhorrence notion "guilt association." justice system considerably tolerance massive remains, safeguard cherished one's deeds, another's.17 harmfulness type consequences measure precision.18 These concerns outweigh societal motivate today, strong acted responsibly adhered time-honored crafted respected.19 86 Undertaking perform, cf. 1984-1985, general advisability approach. suffered cursory observations. asserts, "overwhelming evidence" observation. fails appreciate sufficiency-of-the-evidence inquiry.20 faithfully distinction utterly explain about reveals painstaking thorough standard has, met. announces today indication Lane.21 Second, adequate response prejudicial.22 Finally, hesitantly 2-6, assumes inevitable. suggest below, collapses. event, precedents completely untested speculations future retrial. Not surprisingly, opposite.23 extremely weighty conclusion; profound notions justice.24 Even am summary deserves.25 IV 91 insofar upholds 8(b)—the prohibiting —occasioned son, (the 1979 fire), believe father's felony adversely 92 sows requires. Because 84-744. Six Turkette, 632 896, 906, (CA1 1980), rev'd grounds, 452 576, 101 2524, 246 (1981); Graci, 504 (CA3 1974); Bova, 493 Bledsoe, 674 647, 654, 657-658 (CA8), cert. sub nom. Phillips 459 1040, 456, 608 (1982); Eagleston, 417 11, (CA10 1969); Ellis, 709 688, 690 (CA11 1983). subjected Ajlouny, 629 830, 843 (CA2 denied, 449 1111, 920, 840 Seidel, 620 1006 (CA4 1980); Hatcher, 680 438, 442 (CA6 1982); Varelli, 407 735, 747-748 (CA7 Martin, 849, 854 (CA9 1977); Baker 131 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 21-23, 401 958, 972-974 stated "loss originate act, design procurement your affiant" "no deceive company loss made." "(b) Joinder Defendants. information offenses. Such separately count." challenged cross-petition. continues supra. argues conclusively determined se, "rule case." 467. certain requirements, Rules' 468, 3, referring Nowhere enshrine "principle" Improper violate Constitution. great deny Amendment trial. irrelevant whereas here nature. 472. logic although violations, rules. onerous 472-473, 11. heightened protections warrants comparably, "most violations" ignored problem joinder." 774, apply, "restraint." Contrary holdings, advocates rule-by-rule establishing bright-line conduct 472-474. face, admits broad applicability. assumption implicated "affected" begs Assuming remains record. too late day incorporate following arguably broader Schaffer. eviscerate discretion believes 14. 14's flexibility risk party; abuse discretion. granting met, prejudice; aside degree necessary identical recognize component involves requirements. Note, tolerates hurdle obtaining prejudice, shown, district court's motion. inquiry." 476; makes 449. irrelevant; threshold higher uphold Nor instructions response" 477. dissent, Blumenthal 332 539, 248, 154 (1947), direct mass ), inadequate 559-560, 257-258. Blumenthal, faced crimes. aware potential transference border admissibility [may be] reduced minimum" carefully strict innocence independently. 257. necessarily "assume misunderstood disobeyed" instructions. 553, 254. acutely charge—not testimony consider, available [defendant] respective counts." caution exercised required. similarity "only appeals' narrow 8" Lankford—two principal actors—testified Lanes, denials defenses. segregated 6. "Whoever, devised intending devise artifice defraud, ., places post office authorized depository matter, whatever sent Postal Service, knowingly causes thing, fined $1,000 years, both." contends undisputed unlike normal checks, payable demand authorization home arrived bank collection. deposited dishonored banks, amounts account. therefore, irrevocably proceeds mailing. Brief 30-31. rely argument, factual delayed ongoing accord purported help businessmen loans sell businesses exchange "advance fee." 77, 174. Following deposit checks fees, plan letter assuring receiving services for. 78, upheld "lulling mailings. (1974). use stolen credit card statements bank. defrauder's goods, distinguishing Sampson slips, acting acquiescence, "increased probability defrauder] detected apprehended." Had submit timely discovered Circuit's conflicts Ledesma, 670 (CA7), 998, 296 (1980), fraudulent proceeds. Seventh "lulling" effect. specifically lull, intention come infer scarcely needs repeating legislature, considerations strongest confronts constructions Cf. Burnet Coronado Oil Gas Co., 285 393, 406-407, 443, 447, 815 (1932) (Brandeis, Until inapplicable rights. 42-44, 836-837 (Stewart, result) ("[I]n line cases, variety prosecutions, steadfastly 'harmless' discussing examples)); 764-765, 19, 1247-1248, 19. altered "there insignificant Constitution, violations," many E.g., Vasquez Hillery, 254, 617, 598 (1985) (discrimination selection); 84-88, 976-978, J.) (Sandstrom violation); Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 792, (1963) (right counsel); Tumey Ohio, 273 437, 749 (1927) impartial tribunal). derive affect, by, doctrine. egregious constitute deprivation due process. infra. parties Clause undoubtedly above, codify forth limitations 444-445, 7. correctly 449-450, similar, purposes scope different. proof "naturally" Relying presumptions lightly inferred. permissible presumption," said, particular, 'its natural effect' setting." 765-766, "Two authorize consolidation tried. admitted government Stufflebeam Hook confessing seemed concede appropriate O.T.1896, 402, ("It certainly prejudiced, defense stood charged, compelled Bland, prosecuted fifteen tried"). Procedure: Documentary History, Second Preliminary Draft, Feb. 1944, Note pp. 35-36 ("Since consolidated 557, 'put category indictment,' widely practiced realized"). Maguire, Proposed Ore.L.Rev. 56, (1943) ("Subdivision (b) offense, counts, manner indicating participation ."). 9" change. Orfield, F.R.D. 28-29 (1960). provides, pertinent "If appears together, election requires." edition, almost-unanimous Criminal, 145, 532 (2d ed. 1982). Narrowing Division Opinion, Hofstra L.Rev. 533, (1978) ("Implicit sets tolerable vest court. included rules, outer bounds discretionary 14"). issue, ("On parties"); ("Any disregarded"). background 758-760, referred ed.) rights"; L.Rev., supra 540 (discussing change). (1949) (new "incorporate" Notes Rules, law"); 757, 1243, comment 'a law' "). difference inquiries subjects. Compare ("before able declare belief (in influence"). ultimately 449, law; controls distinction. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 842-843, 104 2778, 2781, 694 (1984) ("If matter; unambiguously Congress"). Comment, Error: Abettor Courtroom Misconduct, J.Crim.L. 457, currently eroding encouraging longstanding rules"); Goldberg, Constitutional Sneak Thief, 421, 422 (1980) ("the destroys institutional values"); Harmful Use Cases, Cornell 538, (1979) ("increased dangerous statutes, law") (footnotes omitted); Cameron Osborn, Isn't Harmless, 1971 Law Social Order ("while device dangers"). Jackson, 429 1368, 1373 1970) (Clark, sitting designation) (" 'Harmless error' swarming around 7th bees. [T]he presently alarming situation"). Field, Assessing Harmlessness Error—A Need Rationale, 125 U.Pa.L.Rev. 15, (1976) ("In sum, content lucid. opinions slip back another, explicit notice change, produce cases"); Saltzburg, Harm Error, Va.L.Rev. 988 (1973) ("Chaos surrounds proceedings"); Mause, Implications Minn.L.Rev. 519, 557 (1969) interest net judicial economy, delineate well-defined classes reversal"). area, render inappropriate. Mitchell, 443 545, 99 2993, 739 (racial selection analysis); ("there basic infraction error"). dissenting) (some "are infect obtained"). Holloway Arkansas, 435 475, 491, 98 1173, 1182, 426 (1978), representation "unguided speculation." 13, 563-564 ("Holloway's rationale naturally extends sixth amendment: fundamental, pervasive uncertain impact. extended constitutional, unascertainable prejudice") Krulewitch 336 440, 716, 724-725, 93 790 (Jackson, concurring) ("Few instruments injustice equal implied constructive odious oppressions mask justice"). 563 (harmless inaccurate ascertaining impossibility prejudice"). erroneous. writes: "A apply." 447. cited proposition, explicitly disavowed "indication" majority. instant shown"). Schaffer, 447-448, beside point. year decided, support, conclusion, viability Ward 110 130, 137, 289 877, 878 (1961) (Burger, reject established). "suggested apply" vastly overstates gave added weight observed "§ carries threat overriding substituting indictments, restraint. sections conflict." expression hardly despite harmony," produces accepted concession "insufficient, 753, 1242. emphasize fundamentally concededly quotes reflect mentioned 450-451, represents testimony. posing evidentiary problems. J. Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's ¶ 107[04], 107-50—107-51 (1985); S. Gard, Jones 20:60, 736-737 (6th ed.1972). alleviate inherent trials: danger arose rulings rested direction, transfer, consciously unconsciously, admissions Goldsmith Weiss across barrier exclusion defendants." 559, 257, (1947). be, reach, insubstantial offered convict conviction, authorities cited, statute]." 767, 1249. (1970) ("[T]he complex. bears traditional encompasses opportunity heard tribunal, orderly presentation rational thereto"). searching confront troublesome aspects witnesses—more charged. Testimony Morris Loewenstern, Tr. 33-43; Earl Simpson, 44-50; Cindy 58-59; David Lard, 62-89, 96-103; Ben Shaw, 103-112; Jack Stotts, 113-123; Wayne Cox, 123-132; Jay Messenger, 139-157; 230-243. focused Janie Malone, 681-736; Jess Maddox, 891-894. closing arguments, counsel devoted 989-993; defense's arg., 1008-1014. And might, finally, prosecutor's words "each proved J.C. doubt." 1051 studied care gives wrestled complexities 1,000-page transcript permit confident

Category: 0