Fry v. Pliler

Summary

Justice Stevens concurs in part and dissents in part, urging that the Court answer whether the constitutional error was harmless under Brecht v. Abrahamson. He argues the exclusion of Maples’ testimony was not harmless given the jury’s long deliberations and the nature of the error, concluding the judgment should be reversed. Justice Breyer concurs in part and dissents in part, agreeing the error was not harmless but arguing the case should be remanded for reconsideration of the trial court’s admissibility determination.