- 213 -
burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the
admission of the confession was harmless error. See id. at 295-
296.
The Supreme Court described the distinction between a
constitutional violation that may be characterized as a trial
error as opposed to a structural defect as follows:
Since this Court's landmark decision in Chapman v.
California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), in which we adopted the
general rule that a constitutional error does not
automatically require reversal of a conviction, the
Court has applied harmless-error analysis to a wide
range of errors and has recognized that most
constitutional errors can be harmless. See, e.g.,
Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 752-754
(1990)(unconstitutionally overbroad jury instructions
at the sentencing stage of a capital case); Satterwhite
v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 (1988)(admission of evidence at
the sentencing stage of a capital case in violation of
the Sixth Amendment Counsel Clause); Carella v.
California, 491 U.S. 263, 266 (1989)(jury instruction
containing an erroneous conclusive presumption); Pope
v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 501-504 (1987)(jury
instruction misstating an element of the offense); Rose
v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986)(jury instruction
containing an erroneous rebuttable presumption); Crane
v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 691 (1986)(erroneous
exclusion of defendant's testimony regarding the
circumstances of his confession); Delaware v. Van
Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986)(restriction on a
defendant's right to cross-examine a witness for bias
in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation
Clause); Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117-118, and
n.2 (1983)(denial of a defendant's right to be present
at trial); United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499
(1983)(improper comment on defendant's silence at
trial, in violation of the Fifth Amendment Self-
Incrimination Clause); Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605
(1982)(statute improperly forbidding trial court's
giving a jury instruction on a lesser included offense
in a capital case in violation of the Due Process
Clause); Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786
(1979)(failure to instruct the jury on the presumption
of innocence); Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220, 232
(1977)(admission of identification evidence in
violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause);
Page: Previous 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011