United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 21 (1995)

Page:   Index   Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

526

UNITED STATES v. GAUDIN

Rehnquist, C. J., concurring

of confessions, Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 683, 688-689 (1986), the legality of searches and seizures, Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 12(b)(3), and the propriety of venue, see Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 18, may be decided by the trial court.

Finally, the Government has not argued here that the error in this case was either harmless or not plain. Brief for United States 8, n. 5. As to the former, there is a "strong presumption" that a constitutional violation will be subject to harmless-error analysis. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570, 579 (1986). Accordingly, "the Court has applied harmless-error analysis to a wide range of errors and has recognized that most constitutional errors can be harmless." Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 306 (1991); cf. id., at 309-310 (listing examples of structural errors). In particular, the Court has subjected jury instructions plagued by constitutional error to harmless-error analysis. See, e. g., Yates v. Evatt, 500 U. S. 391, 402 (1991) (taint of an unconstitutional burden-shifting jury instruction subject to harmless-error analysis); Carella v. California, 491 U. S. 263, 266 (1989) (per curiam) ( jury instruction containing an erroneous mandatory presumption subject to harmless-error analysis); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U. S. 497, 502-504 (1987) ( jury instruction misstating an element of an offense subject to harmless-error analysis); Rose, supra, at 581-582 ( jury instruction containing an erroneous rebuttable presumption subject to harmless-error analysis); but see Sullivan, 508 U. S., at 280- 282 (erroneous burden of proof instruction not subject to harmless-error analysis). The Court today has no occasion to review the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the constitutional error here "cannot be harmless." 28 F. 3d, at 951.

As to the latter, in United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 732 (1993), the Court noted the limitations on "plain error" review by the courts of appeals under Rule 52(b). "The first limitation on appellate authority under Rule 52(b) is that there indeed be an 'error.' " Ibid. Second, "the error [must] be 'plain.' " Id., at 734. Thus, "[a]t a minimum, a

Page:   Index   Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007