Fry Vs. Pliler - Cases Cited

SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 FRY V. PLILER

testimony violated Chambers v. Mississippi

s verdict under Brecht v. Abrahamson

standard set forth in Chapman v. California

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), as interpreted in Mitchell v. Esparza

in which Breyer, J., joined in part. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Fry v. Pliler

OPINION OF THE COURT FRY V. PLILER

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 06-5247 JOHN FRANCIS FRY, PETITIONER v. CHERYL

standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson

testimony deprived him of a fair opportunity to defend himself, in violation of Chambers v. Mississippi

nature of the testimony. People v. Fry

standard of review applied to nonconstitutional errors on direct appeal from federal convictions. See Kotteakos v. United

ibid . (quoting United States v. Mechanik

the state appellate court recognized the constitutional error and reached the Chapman question. See Penry v. Johnson

Calderon v. Coleman

d)(1). In Mitchell v. Esparza

recognition that AEDPA limited rather than expanded the availability of habeas relief, see, e.g. , Williams v. Taylor

U. S., at 637 (quoting United States v. Lane

when constitutional error in a state-court trial is first recognized by a federal court. Compare, e.g. , Bains v. Cambra

CA9 2000), with Orndorff v. Lockhart

testimony was an unreasonable application of Chambers v. Mississippi

Neal v. McAninch

Neal . Fry v. Pliler

OPINION OF STEVENS, J. FRY V. PLILER

should also answer the question whether the constitutional error was harmless under the standard announced in Brecht v. Abrahamson

emphasize the important point that the Brecht standard, as more fully explained in our opinion in Kotteakos v. United

testimony for lack of foundation was clear constitutional error under Chambers v. Mississippi

Cf. Skipper v. South

is difficult to imagine a less appropriate case for an exception to that commonsense proposition. We found in Parker v. Gladden

We have not been shy in emphasizing that federal habeas courts do not lightly find constitutional error. See Carey v. Musladin

of the Court of Appeals. Footnote 1 In Brecht itself the application of the standard of Kotteakos v. United

App. 179. Footnote 4 See United States v. Fields

Kennedy v. Lockyer

Powell v. Collins

United States v. Varoudakis

United States v. Ottersburg

Medina v. Barnes

Justice Breyer, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the Court that Brecht v. Abrahamson

Ante , at 3 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi

U. S. 284 (1973)). Cf. Kyles v. Whitley

U. S. 419 , 435 (1995) (similar statement as to errors under Brady v. Maryland

normally will not rise to the level of a constitutional, Chambers , mistake. Cf., e.g. , United States v. Scheffer

Fry Vs. Pliler - Cites