Document: 513 U.S. 432115 S.Ct. 992130 L.Ed.2d 947 Robert O'NEAL, Petitioner,v.Fred McANINCH, Warden. No. 93-7407. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 31, 1994. Decided Feb. 21, 1995. Syllabus * In proceedings on O'Neal's federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state-court convictions for murder and other crimes, Sixth Circuit assumed that O'Neal had established constitutional "trial" error with regard to one jury instructions, but disregarded ground it was "harmless." After setting forth harmlessness standard normally used by courts—whether a "substantial injurious effect or influence in determining jury's verdict," see, e.g., Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 ----, 113 1710, 1712, 123 353—the stated petitioner must bear "burden establishing" whether prejudicial under standard. As practical matter, court's burden-of-proof statement apparently means lose if reviewing judge is grave doubt about this kind error, i.e., if, judge's mind, matter so evenly balanced he she feels virtual equipoise as error's harmlessness. Held: When court finds trial not harmless, win. Pp. ___-___. (a) The foregoing legal conclusion rests upon three considerations. First, supported precedent. See, Kotteakos States, 328 750, 764-765, 66 1239, 1247-48, 90 L.Ed. 1557; Chapman California, 386 18, 24, 87 824, 828, 17 705. Brecht, supra, at S.Ct., Palmer Hoffman, 318 109, 116, 63 477, 481-82, 645, distinguished. State's view appellants' "burden" showing "prejudice" civil cases applies fails take into account stakes involved proceeding. Unlike cited State, errors being considered occurred criminal proceeding, therefore, although someone's custody, rather than mere liability, stake. Moreover, precedent suggests harmless-error standards do differ their treatment affecting substantial rights. Compare, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 52(a) Civ.Proc. 61. Second, Court's consistent basic purposes underlying writ corpus. A rule requiring issuance will, least often, avoid grievous wrong holding person custody violation Constitution will thereby both protect individuals from unconstitutional help guarantee integrity process assuring trials are fundamentally fair. contrast, denying uncertainty would interest finality its judgments promote federal-state comity, such also virtually many, fact, be wrongly imprisoned executed, tell judges who believe quite possibly held unlawful they cannot grant relief. Third, adopted herein has certain administrative virtues: It way courts have long-treated important avoids need read lengthy records determine prejudice every case. These factors determinative, offer caution against that, respect purpose, run judicial grain. __. (b) Contrary argument, there nothing language statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), tells treat harmless when Indeed, no significant support either side any relevant statutes Rules. these circumstances, properly undertakes examination, looking first considerations jurisprudence, then proposed advance inhibit weighing marginal costs benefits application collateral review. See ----. 3 F.3d 143, (CA 6 1993), vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, Thomas R. Wetterer, Jr., appointed Columbus, OH, petitioner. Richard A. Cordray, respondent. James Feldman, Washington, DC, amicus curiae special leave Court. Justice BREYER 1 Reviewing disregard harmless. This case asks us decide should consider (1) reviews judgment trial, (2) (3) We recognize last mentioned circumstance, "grave doubt," unusual. Normally record review permit make up her mind matter. And indeed an obligation so. But, we here governs circumstance leaves conscientious likely verdict. (By doubt" mean himself error.) conclude uncertain were affected verdict (i.e., verdict"). 2 crimes. Federal District agreed several claims error. On appeal disagreed exception. That exception focused possible "confusion" arising out instruction state necessary conviction combined related prosecutor. assumed, argument's sake, (taken together prosecutor's statement) violated misleading jury. Nonetheless, 147 (1993). sets applied deciding namely, " ' "had verdict." Id., 145 (quoting 353 (1993) (quoting, adopting, set 776, 1253, 1557 (1946))). ask directly record's facts satisfied standard, seemed refer burden proof. Its says prejudicial. F.3d, 145. lose. Thus, might lost Appeals, because concluded left them 4 granted certiorari what law requires circumstances. repeat our conclusion: proceeding And, II 5 initial note deliberately phrase issue terms doubt, instead proof." before does involve shifts control presentation evidence involves apply (harmlessness) longer affect. case, think conceptually clearer directly, "Do I, judge, substantially influenced decision?" try put same question proof burdens (e.g., I party borne . .?"). Chief Traynor said: "Whether counsel helpful, still responsibility court, once concludes judgment. without benefit aids presumptions allocated expedite fact-finding trial." Traynor, Riddle Harmless Error 26 (1970) (hereinafter Traynor). 7 may sometimes arise, however, where id., 22-23. narrow address here. III 8 Our conclusion—that win—rests supports conclusion. stated, "the original common-law beneficiary [here, State] prove injury. ." 705 (1967) (citing J. Wigmore, Evidence 21 (3d ed. 1940)). doubt-as-to-harmlessness context direct nonconstitutional rule. wrote: 9 "If, all said done, [court's] sure did jury, very slight effect, stand. But say, fair assurance, after pondering happened stripping erroneous action whole, swayed impossible rights affected. inquiry merely enough result, apart phase rather, even so, itself influence. If stand." U.S., 1248 (emphasis added). 10 1248-49 (holding influence" jury). way, Olano, 1770, 508 (stating Rule Criminal Procedure Government bears absence prejudice"); Lane, 474 438, 449, 106 725, 732, 88 814 (1986) providing proper misjoinder quoting 'grave doubt' language). 11 Chapman, 828 only "harmless beyond reasonable doubt"). wrote "constitutional casts someone prejudiced show harmless." Ibid. 12 concede Abrahamson course more lenient stricter errors, petitioners "are entitled relief based unless can establish resulted 'actual prejudice.' 1721 language, determinative. choice substantive standards: less strict Kotteakos, measure Both those resolved now placing risk State. sentence quoted above appears paragraph adopts apply. explain why portion Furthermore, respect, speak majority. Four Members supporting Chapman's dissented. while Member majority, explicitly entirety. 1723 (STEVENS, concurring) (agreeing, part, "places prosecutors harmless"). 13 further acknowledge 645 (1943), 14 "He seeks aside ruling carries resulted." 482. 15 pre-Kotteakos context, referred preceding described "[m]ere 'technical errors.' makes clear "technical errors" different. quotes excerpt House Report accompanying statute (then 391) 16 'upon seeking new technical complain rights.' 760, 1246 H.R.Rep. 913, 65th Cong., 3d Sess., (1919)). Report, (as immediately points out) goes say "technical," instead, 18 'the character natural litigant's rights, [then] sustaining notwithstanding legislation rest it.' 19 including violation, fall in" category, "in 'technical' category" described. concurring); see Bruno 308 287, 294, 60 198, 200-01, 84 257 (1939) (Frankfurter, J.) (describing concerned "mere etiquette formalities minutiae procedure"). 20 examined State relies appellants cases. Erskine Consolidated Rail Corp., F.2d 266 (CA6 1987); Flanigan Burlington Northern Inc., 632 880 (CA8 1980); Creekmore Crossno, 259 697 (CA10 1958). contends technically speaking, Browder Director, Dept. Corrections Ill., 434 257, 269, 98 556, 563, 54 521 (1978), One problem argument lies failure explained, consistently granted. hold 22 interpreted then-existing 391, codified minor change 2111. 759, 1245 (explaining "grew widespread deep conviction" appellate become 'impregnable citadels technicality' ") (citation omitted). terms, cases, made distinction, here, between two types 757, n. 9, 1244, 9; C. Wright & Miller, Practice 2883, p. 276 (1973) Miller). Similarly, current "traces lineage" proceedings. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. Greenwood, 464 548, 554, 4, 104 845, 849 78 663 (1984). present purposes, sections Rules Civil (which use nearly identical language) 391 statutory source. Compare (providing "[a]ny affect shall disregarded") 61 "must parties"); Advisory Committee's Notes 52(a), U.S.C.App., 833 (referring former source); 61, 676 (same). recent treating instances just ---- - ----; 732 765, 1248). For reasons, assume judging (despite fact trials), difference us. authority clearly indicates similarly regarding provides. 23 said, dealing dimension—the sort risks unreliable outcome consequent innocent person. (O'CONNOR, dissenting). assuming answer question, "But, 'substantial influence' is, "It extremely difficult say." wrong—holding States." §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). Such protects helps ("In long closer guard alert reverse, could contaminated judgment"). By opposite rule, uncertainty, custody—contrary writ's most traditions purposes. Constitution" 24 (denying writ) comity. retrials, some which, late day, lead freedom whose unaffected took place trials. avoiding retrial latter category legitimate important. somewhat diminished infected trial. assumes been harmful not, often (or sometimes) reconviction, factual circumstance: number acquittals caused delayed (the serious harm interests) small compared persons whom imprison execute. balance, many people prison Constitution," fear otherwise smaller number, held, eventually go free. 25 virtues. treated errors. supra; 828; Miller 2883. highly area one, consistency brings simplicity, body existing available consultation, consequently further, error-produced, IV additional argument. "shall entertain [a petitioner] laws treaties 27 2241(c)(3). "violation adds, causal connection "violation" "custody," prisoner Constitution." analogy tort law, position plaintiff, connection. Whatever force countered equally persuasive affirmative defenses, defendant (here State) equipoise. counter principle effect" 1253. easily infer opposite—that defense—from absence, Habeas Corpus Rules' form petition, space "lack harmlessness" allegation. 2254 2(c) part annexed rules"). Or, neutrality point statute's command dispose "as justice require." 2243. Ultimately, find language. faced gaps "look[ed] determine[d] review." 1719. done reasons above, ___-___, affects V 29 Appeals vacated, remanded opinion. 30 ordered. 31 REHNQUIST SCALIA join, dissenting. 32 my view, upset results marred harmful. Because otherwise, respectfully dissent. 33 Though majority begins examination construing 2111, begin governing prisoners custody. all, seek statute. 34 Where concerned, trial; Solicitor General correctly argues, link Quite obviously, proves trivial ("harmless") secure cause Notwithstanding thus unwarranted. Even implicitly agrees causation necessary, discuss opposed 35 comes plaintiff. plaintiff "seeks affairs," "naturally expected persuasion." McCormick 337, 428 (J. Strong, 4th 1992). Part requirement defendant's actions harm. areas almost invariably persuasion Wards Cove Packing Co. Atonio, 490 642, 669, 109 2115, 2131, 733 (1989) dissenting) ordinary persuading trier harmed her"); Restatement (Second) Torts 433B(1) (1965) ("the tortious conduct plaintiff"). Establishing essential element plaintiff's chief. Under majority's rationale, all; establishes government affirmatively persuade Ante, Without explaining favors plaintiffs over plaintiffs, treats defense. 36 Requiring non-persuasion accords usual rules litigation, compelled nature "When end, presumption legality attaches sentence." Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 887, 103 3383, 3391-92, 77 1090 (1983). acknowledged "writ strikes finality," "law's objects," McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 491, 111 1454, 1468, 517 (1989), obtains disadvantage "through 'erosion memory' 'dispersion witnesses' occur passage time," Kuhlmann Wilson, 477 436, 453, 2616, 2627, 91 364 (plurality opinion) Engle Isaac, 456 107, 127-128, 102 1558, 1571-72, 71 783 (1982)). indicate upsetting countenanced rare instances. [113 1719, 353] (noting historically regarded extraordinary remedy"). 37 ample wary writ. routinely punish innocent. Instead, guilt doubt. Re Winship, 397 358, 1068, 368 (1970). overwhelming never reach stage, since found guilty postconviction reduce possibility therefore well founded. 38 jurisprudence informed recognition affront 'disturbs repose denies society right admitted offenders, intrudes sovereignty degree matched few exercises authority.' Duckworth Eagan, 492 195, 210, 2875, 2884, 166 Harris Reed, 489 255, 282, 1038, 1054, (KENNEDY, dissenting)). McCleskey, 1468-69; Engle, 128, 1572. harm, seems particularly disrespectful resolve doubts propriety judgments. 39 "harmless-error" concerns 'had verdict.' 1714] (1946)). alluded earlier, ___, test consists inquiry—was conviction. like succeed. 40 derives contrary corpus, virtue stems following analysis unpersuasive. 41 examining practice appeals. quarrel shown appeal, demonstrate ante 4-5, 1253; (1967); 1778, 1781, 508] (1993)). Still, neither subject ) nor Courts (discussed Olano prior 2111; Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 52(a); Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 42 To sure, borrowed applicable interpreting 1718]. Applying sense, warrant own precedents relied certainly dispositive. itself—despite adopting Kotteakos—departed "establish" met. 1722]. 43 look greater relevance. admits, ante, __ Illinois, (1978)). Although acknowledges claiming it, dismisses purport overrule Palmer. Nor true limited involving predecessor modern well), errors." "carries resulted"; "technically" rulings encumbered. 481-82. Accordingly, appellant, did. Smith Wal-Mart Stores (No. 471), 891 1177, 1180 (CA5 1990) (per curiam); Killough, 848 1523, 1527 (CA11 1988); Seaboard Surety Co., 817 956, 964 (CA2), cert. denied, 484 855, 108 161, 115 (1987); Sixth, Eighth Tenth Circuits). Barth Gelb, 1180, 1188 (CADC 1993) 44 distinction cases; places government, decides context. syllogism turned result reaches. Authority assigns alleging draws followed reasoning yields determinate answer. 45 indicated provisions actually anyway. occasion harmonize overruling rejecting prevails issue, today. B 46 second claim "conclusion corpus." lays moral high ground: "We person." harmfulness "a 'in States.' ___ 2254(a)). 47 concedes interests stake—a state's promotion __—but principles aside. finality, "legitimate important", ibid., [the] execute," 48 Despite rhetoric, balancing associated disturbing adoption line "significant "any willing far order ensure unlawfully imprisoned. assumptions, "many, custody." 9. 49 recognize, moreover, discusses imprisonments executions, addressing questions innocence guilt. turn entertained suggest half unjustly 50 Citing easier administer Appeal provide attractive longstanding practice. assertion eliminates case", thought settled "it duty whole" conducting analysis, Hasting, 461 499, 509, 1974, 1980, 76 96 Surely cannot, midst reading record, declare stop reviewing, always disturb until finishes portions record. given potential tempted require continue reread dissipate. 51 Fortunately, announced today minuscule fraction close harmful, ordinarily escape decisions; "special circumstance" thorough remains __,. 52 "might [any supposed] error." ___. observe "[t]he establishing prejudice." Morris, again appear rely reaching decision. 147. chose telling: astonishingly rare. 53 application, gives question. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 499.

Category: 0