sullivan
louisiana
argued
march
decided
june
jury
instructions
petitioner
sullivan
state
trial
murder
included
definition
reasonable
doubt
essentially
identical
one
held
unconstitutional
cage
louisiana
per
curiam
jury
entered
verdict
guilty
sullivan
sentenced
death
upholding
conviction
direct
appeal
louisiana
held
erroneous
instruction
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
held
constitutionally
deficient
reasonable
doubt
instruction
harmless
error
pp
sullivan
sixth
amendment
right
jury
trial
denied
giving
constitutionally
deficient
beyond
reasonable
doubt
instruction
fifth
amendment
requirement
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
see
winship
sixth
amendment
requirement
jury
rather
judge
reach
requisite
finding
guilty
interrelated
required
jury
verdict
verdict
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
opinion
cage
held
instruction
sort
given
produce
verdict
controlling
pp
giving
constitutionally
deficient
reasonable
doubt
instruction
among
constitutional
errors
require
reversal
conviction
rather
amenable
harmless
error
analysis
see
chapman
california
consistent
jury
trial
guarantee
chapman
instructs
reviewing
consider
actual
effect
error
guilty
verdict
case
hand
since
petitioner
case
jury
verdict
within
meaning
sixth
amendment
premise
harmless
error
analysis
absent
unlike
erroneous
presumption
regarding
element
offense
see
sandstrom
montana
deficient
reasonable
doubt
instruction
vitiates
jury
factual
findings
reviewing
case
engage
pure
speculation
view
reasonable
jury
done
wrong
entity
judges
defendant
guilty
moreover
denial
right
jury
verdict
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
consequences
necessarily
unquantifiable
indeterminate
certainly
structural
defec
constitution
trial
mechanism
def
ies
analysis
harmless
error
standards
arizona
fulminante
opinion
rehnquist
pp
scalia
delivered
opinion
unanimous
rehnquist
filed
concurring
opinion
post
john
wilson
reed
appointment
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
william
keppel
michael
wahoske
christopher
riley
karen
fairbairn
jack
peebles
argued
cause
respondent
brief
harry
connick
barry
simon
filed
brief
national
association
criminal
defense
lawyers
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
unanimous
question
presented
whether
constitutionally
deficient
reasonable
doubt
instruction
may
harmless
error
petitioner
charged
murder
course
committing
armed
robbery
new
orleans
bar
alleged
accomplice
crime
convicted
felon
named
michael
hillhouse
testifying
trial
pursuant
grant
immunity
identified
petitioner
murderer
although
several
people
bar
time
robbery
one
testified
trial
witness
unable
identify
either
hillhouse
petitioner
physical
lineup
testified
committed
robbery
saw
petitioner
hold
gun
victim
head
circumstantial
evidence
supporting
conclusion
petitioner
triggerman
la
closing
argument
defense
counsel
argued
reasonable
doubt
identity
murderer
intent
instructions
jury
trial
judge
gave
definition
reasonable
doubt
state
conceded
essentially
identical
one
held
unconstitutional
cage
louisiana
per
curiam
see
jury
found
petitioner
guilty
murder
subsequently
recommended
sentenced
death
trial
agreed
direct
appeal
louisiana
held
consistent
opinion
remand
decision
cage
state
cage
cert
denied
erroneous
instruction
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
therefore
upheld
conviction
though
remanding
new
sentencing
hearing
ineffectiveness
counsel
sentencing
phase
granted
certiorari
ii
sixth
amendment
provides
criminal
prosecutions
accused
shall
enjoy
right
speedy
public
trial
impartial
jury
duncan
louisiana
found
right
trial
jury
serious
criminal
cases
fundamental
american
scheme
justice
therefore
applicable
state
proceedings
right
includes
course
important
element
right
jury
rather
judge
reach
requisite
finding
guilty
see
sparf
thus
although
judge
may
direct
verdict
defendant
evidence
legally
insufficient
establish
guilt
may
direct
verdict
state
matter
overwhelming
evidence
ibid
see
also
martin
linen
supply
carpenters
factfinder
must
determine
return
verdict
guilty
prescribed
due
process
clause
prosecution
bears
burden
proving
elements
offense
charged
see
patterson
new
york
leland
oregon
must
persuade
factfinder
beyond
reasonable
doubt
facts
necessary
establish
elements
see
winship
cool
per
curiam
requirement
adhered
virtually
common
law
jurisdictions
applies
state
well
federal
proceedings
winship
supra
think
fifth
amendment
requirement
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
sixth
amendment
requirement
jury
verdict
interrelated
satisfy
sixth
amendment
jury
determine
defendant
probably
guilty
leave
judge
determine
winship
requires
whether
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
words
jury
verdict
required
sixth
amendment
jury
verdict
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
per
curiam
opinion
cage
accept
controlling
held
instruction
sort
given
produce
verdict
petitioner
sixth
amendment
right
jury
trial
therefore
denied
iii
chapman
california
rejected
view
federal
constitutional
errors
course
criminal
trial
require
reversal
held
fifth
amendment
violation
prosecutorial
comment
upon
defendant
failure
testify
require
reversal
conviction
state
show
beyond
reasonable
doubt
error
complained
contribute
verdict
obtained
chapman
standard
recognizes
certain
constitutional
errors
less
errors
may
harmless
terms
effect
factfinding
process
trial
delaware
van
arsdall
although
constitutional
errors
held
amenable
harmless
error
analysis
see
arizona
fulminante
opinion
rehnquist
collecting
examples
always
invalidate
conviction
citing
inter
alia
gideon
wainwright
total
deprivation
right
counsel
tumey
ohio
trial
biased
judge
mckaskle
wiggins
right
question
present
case
category
present
error
belongs
chapman
suggests
answer
consistent
jury
trial
guarantee
question
instructs
reviewing
consider
effect
constitutional
error
might
generally
expected
upon
reasonable
jury
rather
effect
upon
guilty
verdict
case
hand
see
chapman
supra
analyzing
effect
error
verdict
obtained
harmless
error
review
looks
said
basis
jury
actually
rested
verdict
yates
evatt
emphasis
added
inquiry
words
whether
trial
occurred
without
error
guilty
verdict
surely
rendered
whether
guilty
verdict
actually
rendered
trial
surely
unattributable
error
must
hypothesize
guilty
verdict
never
fact
rendered
matter
inescapable
findings
support
verdict
might
violate
guarantee
see
rose
clark
blackmun
dissenting
pope
illinois
stevens
dissenting
proper
role
appellate
engaged
chapman
inquiry
understood
illogic
harmless
error
review
present
case
becomes
evident
since
reasons
described
jury
verdict
within
meaning
sixth
amendment
entire
premise
chapman
review
simply
absent
jury
verdict
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
question
whether
verdict
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
rendered
absent
constitutional
error
utterly
meaningless
object
speak
upon
harmless
error
scrutiny
operate
appellate
conclude
jury
surely
found
petitioner
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jury
actual
finding
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
surely
different
absent
constitutional
error
enough
see
yates
supra
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
sixth
amendment
requires
appellate
speculation
hypothetical
jury
action
else
directed
verdicts
state
sustainable
appeal
requires
actual
jury
finding
guilty
see
bollenbach
insofar
possibility
harmless
error
review
concerned
jury
instruction
error
case
quite
different
jury
instruction
error
erecting
presumption
regarding
element
offense
mandatory
presumption
example
presumption
person
intends
ordinary
consequences
voluntary
acts
violates
fourteenth
amendment
may
relieve
state
burden
proving
elements
offense
sandstrom
montana
francis
franklin
hen
jury
instructed
presume
malice
predicate
facts
still
must
find
existence
facts
beyond
reasonable
doubt
rose
clark
supra
latter
facts
closely
related
ultimate
fact
presumed
rational
jury
find
facts
without
also
finding
ultimate
fact
making
findings
functionally
equivalent
finding
element
required
presumed
carella
california
scalia
concurring
judgment
see
also
pope
supra
scalia
concurring
reviewing
may
thus
able
conclude
presumption
played
significant
role
finding
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
yates
supra
essential
connection
beyond
reasonable
doubt
factual
finding
made
instructional
error
consists
misdescription
burden
proof
vitiates
jury
findings
reviewing
engage
pure
speculation
view
reasonable
jury
done
wrong
entity
judge
defendant
guilty
rose
supra
another
mode
analysis
leads
conclusion
harmless
error
analysis
apply
fulminante
distinguished
one
hand
structural
defects
constitution
trial
mechanism
defy
analysis
harmless
error
standards
hand
trial
errors
occur
presentation
case
jury
may
therefore
quantitatively
assessed
context
evidence
presented
denial
right
jury
verdict
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
certainly
error
former
sort
jury
guarantee
basic
protectio
whose
precise
effects
unmeasurable
without
criminal
trial
reliably
serve
function
rose
supra
right
trial
jury
reflects
said
profound
judgment
way
law
enforced
justice
administered
duncan
louisiana
deprivation
right
consequences
necessarily
unquantifiable
indeterminate
unquestionably
qualifies
structural
error
judgment
louisiana
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
state
argued
cage
standard
review
jury
instructions
looked
whether
jury
applied
instructions
manner
inconsistent
constitution
contradicted
boyde
california
disapproved
estelle
mcguire
view
question
presented
state
failure
raise
issue
consider
whether
instruction
given
survive
review
boyde
standard
see
granfinanciera
nordberg
washington
confederated
bands
tribes
yakima
nation
chief
justice
rehnquist
concurring
arizona
fulminante
divided
class
constitutional
violations
may
occur
course
criminal
proceeding
trial
sentencing
two
categories
one
consisting
trial
error
may
quantitatively
assessed
context
evidence
presented
opinion
rehnquist
amenable
harmless
error
analysis
consisting
structural
defects
affec
framework
within
trial
proceeds
require
automatic
reversal
strong
presumption
error
fall
first
categories
rose
clark
thus
rare
case
constitutional
violation
subject
harmless
error
analysis
see
fulminante
supra
listing
examples
structural
errors
holds
today
reasonable
doubt
instruction
given
sullivan
trial
conceded
violates
due
process
decision
cage
louisiana
per
curiam
amounts
structural
error
thus
harmless
regardless
overwhelming
evidence
sullivan
guilt
see
ante
grounds
conclusion
determination
harmless
error
analysis
conducted
respect
error
sort
consistent
sixth
amendment
right
jury
trial
course
long
since
rejected
argument
general
matter
sixth
amendment
prohibits
application
harmless
error
analysis
determining
whether
constitutional
error
prejudicial
impact
outcome
case
see
rose
supra
concludes
situation
hand
fundamentally
different
though
case
constitutionally
deficient
reasonable
doubt
instruction
entire
premise
chapman
harmless
error
review
simply
absent
ante
jury
views
evidence
lens
defective
reasonable
doubt
instruction
reasons
factual
findings
made
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
appellate
ground
harmless
error
analysis
see
ante
thus
distinguishes
cases
found
jury
instructions
create
unconstitutional
presumption
regarding
element
offense
subject
harmless
error
review
rose
clark
supra
example
held
harmless
error
analysis
may
applied
reviewing
instructions
violate
principles
sandstrom
montana
francis
franklin
malice
instruction
rose
shifted
burden
proof
issue
intent
violation
due
process
decision
sandstrom
jury
instructed
presume
malice
certain
predicate
facts
required
find
facts
beyond
reasonable
doubt
held
sandstrom
error
amenable
harmless
error
analysis
see
also
connecticut
johnson
powell
dissenting
many
similarities
instructional
error
rose
one
case
first
place
neither
error
restricted
defendants
opportunity
put
evidence
make
argument
support
claim
innocence
moreover
nlike
structural
errors
judicial
bias
denial
counsel
error
affect
composition
record
finally
neither
error
removed
element
offense
jury
consideration
prevented
jury
considering
certain
evidence
regard
trial
deficient
reasonable
doubt
instruction
given
seems
quite
different
one
reasonable
doubt
instruction
given
thus
many
respects
cage
violation
committed
sullivan
trial
bears
hallmark
error
amenable
harmless
error
analysis
one
may
question
whether
even
case
sandstrom
error
ability
conduct
harmless
error
review
dependent
existence
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jury
findings
typical
case
course
jury
make
explicit
factual
findings
rather
simply
renders
general
verdict
question
guilt
innocence
thus
although
may
possible
conclude
jury
verdict
found
predicate
fact
facts
reviewing
usually
left
recrecord
developed
trial
determine
whether
possible
say
beyond
reasonable
doubt
error
contribute
jury
verdict
moreover
time
appellate
conducts
harmless
error
review
necessarily
engages
speculation
jury
decisionmaking
process
end
judge
know
certain
factors
led
jury
verdict
cf
pope
illinois
yet
harmless
error
review
become
integral
component
criminal
justice
system
see
delaware
van
arsdall
chapman
california
despite
lingering
doubts
accept
conclusion
constitutionally
deficient
reasonable
doubt
instruction
breed
apart
many
instructional
errors
held
amenable
harmless
error
analysis
see
carella
california
per
curiam
instruction
containing
erroneous
conclusive
presumption
pope
illinois
supra
instruction
misstating
element
offense
rose
clark
supra
instruction
containing
erroneous
presumption
constitutionally
deficient
reasonable
doubt
instruction
always
result
absence
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jury
findings
case
agree
harmless
error
analysis
applied
case
defective
reasonable
doubt
instruction
consistent
sixth
amendment
jury
trial
guarantee
join
opinion