Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

In Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967), the Court “adopted the general rule that a constitutional error does not automatically require reversal of a conviction.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 306, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1991) (citing Chapman, supra). If the government can show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained,” the Court held, then the error is deemed harmless and the defendant is not entitled to reversal. Id., at 24, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705.


The Court recognized, however, that some errors should not be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 23, n. 8, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705. These errors came to be known as structural errors. See Fulminante, 499 U. S., at 309-310, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302 . The purpose of the structural error doctrine is to ensure insistence on certain basic, constitutional guarantees that should define the framework of any criminal trial. Thus, the defining feature of ...

Register or login to access full content



Professors
Professionals
Students