Supreme Court of the United States
Fry v. Pliler
June 11, 2007551 U.S. 112
Summary
Justice Scalia's opinion held that federal courts reviewing state convictions under § 2254 must apply Brecht's substantial-and-injurious-effect standard whether or not the state appellate court recognized the constitutional error and reviewed its harmlessness under Chapman. AEDPA did not eliminate that requirement. The Court declined to decide whether the exclusion of evidence actually satisfied Brecht because that fact-specific question fell outside the question presented, and it affirmed the Ninth Circuit. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg and in part by Justice Breyer, agreed with the governing standard but would have addressed its application and reversed because the excluded evidence was not harmless. Justice Breyer separately agreed that the error was harmful but would have remanded for reconsideration of whether the evidentiary exclusion amounted to a constitutional violation.
Holding
- The harmless-error standard governing federal habeas review when the state court did not recognize constitutional error or apply Chapman.. In § 2254 proceedings, courts must assess constitutional trial error under Brecht's substantial-and-injurious-effect standard whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it under Chapman.
- Whether AEDPA eliminated Brecht's actual-prejudice requirement.. AEDPA did not replace Brecht with review limited to whether the state court's Chapman determination was unreasonable; Brecht remains applicable.
- Whether to review the application of Brecht to the particular evidentiary exclusion.. The Court would not decide whether the excluded testimony substantially and injuriously affected the verdict because that question was not fairly encompassed within the question presented.
Docket 06-5247