Citation network
Fry Vs. Pliler
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 11, 2007
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2006 Fry V. PlilerSearch
-
testimony violated Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
s verdict under Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
standard set forth in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), as interpreted in Mitchell v. EsparzaSearch
-
in which Breyer, J., joined in part. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Fry v. PlilerSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Fry V. PlilerSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-5247 John Francis Fry, Petitioner V. CherylSearch
-
standard set forth in Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
testimony deprived him of a fair opportunity to defend himself, in violation of Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
nature of the testimony. People v. FrySearch
-
standard of review applied to nonconstitutional errors on direct appeal from federal convictions. See Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
ibid . (quoting United States v. MechanikSearch
-
the state appellate court recognized the constitutional error and reached the Chapman question. See Penry v. JohnsonSearch
-
Calderon v. ColemanSearch
-
d)(1). In Mitchell v. EsparzaSearch
-
recognition that AEDPA limited rather than expanded the availability of habeas relief, see, e.g. , Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
U. S., at 637 (quoting United States v. LaneSearch
-
when constitutional error in a state-court trial is first recognized by a federal court. Compare, e.g. , Bains v. CambraSearch
-
CA9 2000), with Orndorff v. LockhartSearch
-
testimony was an unreasonable application of Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Neal v. McAninchSearch
-
Neal . Fry v. PlilerSearch
-
Opinion of Stevens, J. Fry V. PlilerSearch
-
should also answer the question whether the constitutional error was harmless under the standard announced in Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
emphasize the important point that the Brecht standard, as more fully explained in our opinion in Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
testimony for lack of foundation was clear constitutional error under Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Cf. Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
is difficult to imagine a less appropriate case for an exception to that commonsense proposition. We found in Parker v. GladdenSearch
-
We have not been shy in emphasizing that federal habeas courts do not lightly find constitutional error. See Carey v. MusladinSearch
-
of the Court of Appeals. Footnote 1 In Brecht itself the application of the standard of Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
App. 179. Footnote 4 See United States v. FieldsSearch
-
Kennedy v. LockyerSearch
-
Powell v. CollinsSearch
-
United States v. VaroudakisSearch
-
United States v. OttersburgSearch
-
Medina v. BarnesSearch
-
Justice Breyer, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the Court that Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
Ante , at 3 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 284 (1973)). Cf. Kyles v. WhitleySearch
-
U. S. 419 , 435 (1995) (similar statement as to errors under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
normally will not rise to the level of a constitutional, Chambers , mistake. Cf., e.g. , United States v. SchefferSearch
-
Mitchell v. EsparzaSearch
-
John Francis Fry, Petitioner V. CherylSearch
-
of Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
People v. FrySearch
-
See Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial