Citation network
Rushen Vs. Spain
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 12, 1983
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
-
U.S. 114 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Rushen v. SpainSearch
-
U.S. 114 (1983) Rushen v. SpainSearch
-
Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 464 U. S. 120 to mitigate constitutional error, if any, that has occurred. See, e.g., United States v. MorrisonSearch
-
Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States, supra, at 422 U. S. 40 . Post-trial hearings are adequately tailored to this task. See, e.g., Smith v. PhillipsSearch
-
Remmer v. UnitedSearch
-
The final decision whether the alleged constitutional error was harmless is one of federal law. Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to the contrary, by the federal courts. See Marshall v. LonbergerSearch
-
These rights, as with most constitutional rights, are subject to harmless error analysis, see, e.g., United States v. MorrisonSearch
-
right to presence), unless the deprivation, by its very nature, cannot be harmless. See, e.g., Gideon v. WainrightSearch
-
that a juror's out-of-court action did not influence the verdict. In Smith v. PhillipsSearch
-
Rogers v. UnitedSearch
-
Shields v. UnitedSearch
-
Fillippon v. AlbionSearch
-
and n. 8. But a juror generally cannot testify about the mental process by which the verdict was arrived. See Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
and inferences to be drawn from the testimony were binding on the District Court and are binding on us. See Marshall v. LonbergerSearch
-
juror Fagan's impartiality. That doubt forecloses reliance on the harmless error standard enunciated in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
even on direct appeal, when the evidence is still fresh and a fair retrial could be promptly conducted. Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of fundamental unfairness to the accused that will support a collateral attack on a final judgment. See, e.g., Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Adams v. UnitedSearch
-
alternate. A deprivation of a right with such a rationale could not be held to be harmless error. See, e.g., Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
Glasser v. UnitedSearch
-
Cuyler v. SullivanSearch
-
Geders v. UnitedSearch
-
Herring v. NewSearch
-
analysis regarding deprivations of the right to counsel at pretrial stages of criminal proceedings, e.g., Coleman v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1970), but see White v. MarylandSearch
-
possible to ascertain whether consideration of inadmissible evidence is harmless error, compare United States v. HenrySearch
-
U. S. 264 , 447 U. S. 274 -275, n. 13 (1980), with Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 220 (1977). In United States v. MorrisonSearch
-
if the Government agents had managed to elicit incriminating information from the defendant, in violation of Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
violations of the right to counsel may be disregarded as harmless error, correctly citing Moore v. IllinoisSearch
-
is largely a question of semantics. The right to be present at trial is rooted in the Confrontation Clause. Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rushen v. SpainSearch
-
See Marshall v. LonbergerSearch
-
Gideon v. WainrightSearch
-
In Smith v. PhillipsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial