Brecht v. Abrahamson

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, held that constitutional trial errors on federal habeas review are governed by Kotteakos's substantial-and-injurious-effect standard rather than Chapman's harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Although the prosecution's impeachment using Brecht's post-Miranda silence violated due process, the error did not substantially influence the verdict, and the Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. Stevens concurred separately to emphasize that the standard requires demanding, whole-record review and places the burden of demonstrating harmlessness on the prosecution. White dissented, joined by Blackmun and by Souter except for the footnote and Part III, arguing that federal law and the habeas statute require application of Chapman; White would remand. Blackmun separately confirmed his full joinder in White's dissent. O'Connor separately dissented and would remand for application of Chapman, emphasizing reliability, fairness, and the absence of administrative benefits from the new rule. Souter separately clarified his partial joinder in White's dissent and reserved any view on the merits of Stone v. Powell.