Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard

215 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Morgan v. Hall
  569 F.2d 1161· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper questioning of the defendant about his post-arrest silence was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
• United States v. Jacques Berenguer
  562 F.2d 206· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the admission of testimony concerning currency seized following a warrantless arrest was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. James
  432 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-02 ·cited 26×
• United States v. Popejoy
  578 F.2d 1346· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's statements, though potentially tainted by an unlawful arrest, was not plain error because no objection was made at trial and the government presented a strong case. The court also held that an inadmissible opinion statement by
• United States v. Tucker
  716 F.2d 576· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's incompetence, which prejudiced his defense.
• Wilson v. Estelle
  625 F.2d 1158· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 24×
  The admission of evidence of prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions, where no imprisonment was imposed, is permissible and any error from a conviction where a short sentence was imposed was harmless.
• United States v. Spinks
  470 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that admitting a co-defendant's confession implicating the defendant was permissible when the defendant also provided a substantially similar confession, and that denying the defendant's request to show surveillance films during closing arguments was not an abuse o
• United States v. Carlson
  423 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bifurcate the insanity defense, nor did it err in striking the testimony related to that defense. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of a tape recording, the curtailment of cros
• Shepard v. Lane
  818 F.2d 615· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant habeas corpus relief because the overwhelming evidence of guilt rendered any alleged errors harmless.
• Coleman v. McCORMICK
  874 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's sentence must be reversed due to procedural issues in place at the time of trial regarding capital punishment hearings.
• United States v. Monaghan
  741 F.2d 1434· D.C. Cir.· 1984-08-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the prosecutor's repeated comments on the defendant's silence, particularly in a case with a questionable witness, constituted reversible error because they were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Lane
  693 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the use of a paid informant on a case-by-case basis did not violate established legal standards, and the trial judge's conduct and statements did not constitute reversible error.
• Burton v. Bergman
  649 F.2d 428· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-21 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in granting habeas relief based on a single word in jury instructions, as the instructions as a whole were not prejudicial and the conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence.
• United States v. Perez
  493 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Martin
  897 F.2d 1368· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the defendant's prior criminal acts was improper and violated the Confrontation Clause, and that this error was not harmless.
• United States ex rel. Marlon Thomas v. O'Leary
  856 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the failure of Thomas's attorneys to file a brief on the State's appeal from the suppression ruling constituted a complete denial of counsel at a critical stage, violating the Sixth Amendment, and that this violation could not be considered harmless error.
• United States ex rel. Ronald James Dessus v. Commonwealth of Pa.
  452 F.2d 557· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-29 ·cited 21×
  Federal courts lack habeas corpus jurisdiction for a petitioner not in custody, and the denial of funds for a defense psychologist was within the trial court's discretion.
• Sanders v. State
  847 So. 2d 504· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-03-31 ·cited 20×
  Sanders appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to request a jury instruction on a lesser included offense. The court affirmed, receding from prior precedent and holding that such a
• United States v. Bailey
  834 F.2d 218· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant access to interview jurors who served with the government's key witness, as this violated her constitutional right to present a defense, but that the other claims of error were without merit.
• Lonnie S. Sales v. Harris
  675 F.2d 532· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while a jury instruction impermissibly removed the issue of photo array suggestiveness from the jury, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor's summation did not deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Cook
  557 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 20×
  The admission of consent injunction documents, which did not admit wrongdoing, was an error under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, particularly for defendant Cook.
• Settle v. State
  288 So. 2d 511· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-01-25 ·cited 20×
  Willie Settle appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on penalties for lesser included offenses. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that judges need only instruct on the penalty for the charged o
• United States v. Chason
  451 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the mailings were sufficiently integral to the scheme to constitute federal mail fraud, and that the erroneous exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's state of mind was harmless error.
• Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin v. Warden, Comm'r, Ga. Dep't OF Corr.
  932 F.3d 1291· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-31 ·cited 19×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, finding that while the prosecutor's comments violated Al-Amin's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the error did not result in actual prejudice under the Brecht standard due to overwhelming
• Anderson v. Smith
  751 F.2d 96· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's videotaped confession, obtained after he invoked his right to remain silent, violated Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny, and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Harris
  703 F.2d 508· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant appearing in clearly identifiable prison garb during voir dire, without a contemporaneous objection, is not harmless error if the evidence of guilt is not overwhelming, as it violates the presumption of innocence.
• Williams v. Martin
  618 F.2d 1021· 4th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge was not at fault for the due process violation, but rather ineffective assistance of counsel was the cause.
• Rudd v. State
  477 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the introduction of identification testimony stemming from unconstitutional pretrial lineups, show-ups, and photo displays was error, warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Pinelli v. United States
  403 F.2d 998· 10th Cir.· 1968-11-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that testimony regarding a note found on the appellant was admissible as harmless error, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for mail theft.
• Ganger v. Peyton
  379 F.2d 709· 4th Cir.· 1967-05-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal court should not vacate a state court conviction for ineffective counsel without the prisoner first exhausting state remedies. However, a conviction obtained when the prosecuting attorney had a conflict of interest, representing the victim in a relat
• Sanchez v. Eloy Mondragon
  858 F.2d 1462· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial court's inquiry into the defendant's decision to waive counsel and proceed pro se was inadequate, violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• Young v. Herring
  917 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 16×
  The dissent argues that the majority misapplies the 'plain statement' rule from Harris v. Reed, improperly expanding federal habeas review by disregarding an adequate and independent state procedural ground.
• United States v. Vizcarra-Porras
  889 F.2d 1435· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity and compel testimony, nor did it err in its evidentiary rulings or find reversible error in the prosecutor's closing argument.
• Gibson v. State
  533 So. 2d 338· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-11-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause argument by failing to properly object on that specific ground in the trial court.
• Mauricio v. Duckworth
  840 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the State's knowing failure to disclose the identity of an alibi rebuttal witness violated due process and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Crowley
  529 F.2d 1066· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the absence of counsel at a hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
• Powell v. Stone
  507 F.2d 93· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that evidence obtained from an arrest under an unconstitutional vagrancy ordinance must be excluded, and its admission in a murder trial was not harmless error.
• Cockrell v. Oberhauser
  413 F.2d 256· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-06 ·cited 16×
  The admission of a codefendant's confession implicating Leroy, and Leroy's silence in response, violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bruton rule does not apply to bench trials, so Ivy's confrontation claim fa
• United States v. Wolf
  879 F.2d 1320· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 15×
  The court's majority opinion, by proceeding to judgment without further fact-finding, has significantly expanded the rule of Arizona v. Roberson beyond its factual basis.
• Velarde v. Shulsen
  757 F.2d 1093· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that prosecutorial cross-examination and argument regarding a defendant's post-arrest silence, when not used for impeachment of prior inconsistent statements, violates due process and is not harmless error in a case hinging on the defendant's credibility.
• United States ex rel. Eddie Allen v. Rowe
  591 F.2d 391· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 15×
  A prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument comments on a defendant's silence during police custody, even before Miranda warnings, violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and are not harmless error.
• United States v. Barta
  888 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 14×
• Lange v. Young
  869 F.2d 1008· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Wisconsin's limitation on the attorney-client privilege, allowing a psychiatrist retained by the defense to testify for the prosecution, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that any evidentiary errors were harmless.
• Merlo v. Bolden
  801 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 14×
  A jury instruction that impermissibly shifts the burden of proof on mens rea, violating Sandstrom v. Montana, is subject to the Chapman harmless error standard and is not automatically reversible if the defendant contested intent.
• Burger v. Kemp
  785 F.2d 890· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the jury instruction on intent was constitutionally infirm, the error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly proved intent and the defendant did not affirmatively raise intent as an issue.
• Redding v. Benson
  739 F.2d 1360· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that value was a material element of attempted theft by deception was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. McGILL
  604 F.2d 1252· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that the defendant was released pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, as any error in not submitting the factual component to the jury was harmless.
• Allison v. Gray
  603 F.2d 633· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the exclusion of alibi evidence under an unconstitutional statute was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Miller
  529 F.2d 1125· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the nondisclosure of a confession constituted a Brady error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Yates
  524 F.2d 1282· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, made while in custody and not denied by the defendant, violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.