NCJ Number
61686
Journal
Cornell Law Review Volume: 64 Issue: 3 Dated: (MARCH 1979) Pages: 538-565
Date Published
1979
Length
28 pages
Annotation
THE ARGUMENT THAT COURTS SHOULD EMPLOY A STRINGENT STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CRIMINAL TRIAL ERRORS AND HOLD THE DOCTRINE OF HARMLESS ERROR INAPPROPRIATE IF THEY CANNOT FAIRLY MEASURE HARMLESSNESS IS PRESENTED.
Abstract
NOT ALL TRIAL ERRORS JUSTIFY REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT ON APPEAL. IF THE ERROR DID NOT AFFECT THE TRIAL'S OUTCOME, APPELLATE COURTS MAY LABEL IT HARMLESS AND, IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY, AFFIRM THE TRIAL COURT DECISION. ERRORS THAT MAY HAVE SWAYED THE VERDICT WARRANT REVERSAL. SOME ERRORS ARE SO EGREGIOUS THAT COURTS WILL AUTOMATICALLY REVERSE THE JUDGMENT; IN CRIMINAL CASES, APPELLATE COURTS SHOULD APPLY THE DOCTRINE SPARINGLY. BEFORE 1919, EVEN TRIVIAL ERRORS AT TRIAL RESULTED IN REVERSAL. HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME, CONGRESS DECREED THAT ONLY ERRORS THAT AFFECTED 'THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES' WERE REVERSIBLE IN FEDERAL COURT. THE DOCTRINE OF HARMLESS ERROR THREATENS TO ERODE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GUILT IN FACT AND GUILT IN LAW AND MAY IMPEDE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, LEAVING FUTURE DEFENDANTS UNCERTAIN ABOUT ITS MEANING AND IMPACT. IN ADDITION, APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE DISTORTS THE APPELLATE PROCESS SINCE THE COURT MUST DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF AN ERROR AND NOT MERELY RULE ON ITS EXISTENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A BIASED JURY DECIDED A CASE, AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD, IN EFFECT, HAVE TO RETRY THE CASE FROM THE RECORD. DESPITE THESE ACKNOWLEDGED FAULTS, THE COURTS HAVE INVOKED THE DOCTRINE WITH INCREASING FREQUENCY. FREQUENCY OF HARMLESS ERROR CASES VARIES AMONG THE CIRCUITS. SOME COURTS HAVE ERODED THE STANDARD OF CERTAINTY FOR A FINDING OF HARMLESSNESS ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE 1967 CASE, CHAPMAN V. CALIFORNIA. THE DOCTRINE OF HARMLESS ERROR CONSERVES JUDICIAL REOURCES BY OBVIATING RETRIAL FOR TRIVIAL MISTAKES. HOWEVER, THE DOCTRINE'S ROLE IN CRIMINAL CASES HAS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE PARTS THAT IT IS ILL-SUITED TO PLAY. HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ERRORS WITH INTRINSIC BUT UNMEASURABLE PREJUDICE. A RULE OF AUTOMATIC REVERSAL SHOULD APPLY TO ERRORS SUCH AS IMPROPER JURY INSTRUCTIONS, INFRINGEMENTS OF THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL, AND EXCLUSION OF KEY EVIDENCE. FOOTNOTES, TABLES, AND CHARTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. (LWM)