Citation network
Chapman Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 20, 1967
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 18 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 18 (1967) Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
trial, but before petitioners' appeal was considered, the state constitutional provision was invalidated by Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
before petitioners' cases had been considered on appeal by the California Supreme Court, this Court decided Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
States Constitution and made applicable to California and the other States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
Where there is a violation of the rule of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
We prefer the approach of this Court in deciding what was harmless error in our recent case of Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
There is little, if any, difference between our statement in Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
can no more be considered harmless than the introduction against a defendant of a coerced confession. See, e.g., Payne v. ArkansasSearch
-
Payne v. ArkansasSearch
-
Cf. Woodby v. ImmigrationSearch
-
at trial, the Court has always reversed convictions regardless of other evidence of guilt. As we stated in Lynumn v. IlliroisSearch
-
That conclusion Page 386 U. S. 43 has been accorded consistent recognition by this Court. Malinski v. NewSearch
-
Spano v. NewSearch
-
Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 315 U. S. 60 , 315 U. S. 76 . That, indeed, was the whole point of Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 335 , overruling Betts v. BradySearch
-
White v. MarylandSearch
-
interest in the result, even if no particular prejudice is shown and even if the defendant was clearly guilty. Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
no showing need be made that the jurors were, in fact, prejudiced against him. Sheppard v. MaxwellSearch
-
Rideau v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 723 , 373 U. S. 727 . See also Estes v. TexasSearch
-
must be overturned though there was ample evidence apart from the presumption to sustain the verdict. Bollenbach v. UnitedSearch
-
the fact that there was a valid alternative ground on which the conviction could have been sustained. Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Williams v. NorthSearch
-
Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 , 317 U. S. 292 . In a long line of cases leading up to and including Whitus v. GeorgiaSearch
-
precedent in this case, and promulgate a novel rule of harmless error applicable to clear violations of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to discharge. A rule of automatic reversal would seem best calculated to prevent clear violations of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
decision but which was not final on appeal until afterwards, so the doctrine of prospectivity announced in Tehan v. ShottSearch
-
should not be the result. For these reasons I believe it inappropriate to inquire whether the violation of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
that the rejection of a harmless error rule turns on any unique evidentiary impact that confessions may have. Haynes v. WashingtonSearch
-
these values with interests of judicial economy might well dictate a harmless error rule for such violations. Cf. Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Earlier this Term, in O'Connor v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 92 , we reversed a conviction on the basis of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of federal law. The Court imposes a revised version of the standard utilized in Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
and adequate state ground of judgment. Believing this to be the situation here, I would dismiss the writ. Viator v. StoneSearch
-
be found. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees individuals against invasions by the States of fundamental rights, Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial