Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1969

Harrington v. California

395 U.S. 250 | 89 S. Ct. 1726 | 23 L. Ed. 2d 284 | 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1435

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Harrington holds that a Bruton confrontation violation may be harmless under Chapman when the untainted evidence is so overwhelming, and the inadmissible confessions so cumulative, that the error did not affect the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Background

Harrington, who was white, was tried jointly with three Black codefendants for attempted robbery and first-degree felony murder after a store employee was killed during the attempted robbery. Harrington objected to the joint trial and sought a severance. Each codefendant had confessed, and the prosecution introduced all three confessions with instructions that the jury could consider each confession only against its maker.

One codefendant, Rhone, testified and was cross-examined by Harrington’s lawyer. The other two, Cooper and Bosby, did not testify. Their confessions referred to a fourth participant as “the white guy,” “the white boy,” or by descriptions that plainly identified Harrington. Those confessions placed him at the scene, though neither said he carried a gun.

Harrington also made statements placing himself at the scene: he admitted Bosby was the shooter, admitted fleeing with the others, and acknowledged changing his appearance afterward. Eyewitnesses testified that he was present and actively participated, although two had initially told police that all four perpetrators were Black. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, and the California Supreme Court denied review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the admission of the two nontestifying codefendants’ confessions, though contrary to Bruton v. United States, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether admitting the confessions of Cooper and Bosby, neither of whom testified, violated Harrington’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right despite limiting instructions to the jury.

Holding

Yes. Bruton applied to Harrington’s state trial, and the admission of the nontestifying codefendants’ incriminating confessions violated the Confrontation Clause.

Reasoning

In Bruton, the Court held that a defendant is denied confrontation when a nontestifying codefendant’s confession is introduced at a joint trial and incriminates the defendant, even if the jury is instructed to use the confession only against its maker. Because the Confrontation Clause applies to state criminal trials through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bruton rule governed this California prosecution as well.

Although Cooper and Bosby did not name Harrington, their references to “the white guy” and their physical descriptions made the identification effectively unmistakable in a trial involving Harrington and three Black codefendants. The Court therefore assumed that the confessions implicated Harrington just as directly as an express naming would have done.

Issue #2

Whether the Bruton violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California.

Holding

Yes. On the particular record, the confrontation violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the properly admitted evidence against Harrington was overwhelming and the improperly admitted confessions were cumulative.

Reasoning

Chapman requires a court to find a federal constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. While some constitutional errors are so fundamental that they can never be harmless, the Court reaffirmed that not every constitutional trial error automatically requires reversal.

Rhone’s testimony, which Harrington had an opportunity to test through cross-examination, placed Harrington inside the store with a gun during the attempted robbery and killing. Harrington’s own statements also placed him at the scene, acknowledged that he fled with the group, identified Bosby as the shooter, and showed consciousness of guilt through his later effort to alter his appearance.

Other witnesses testified that Harrington had a gun and actively participated in the crime. Cooper’s and Bosby’s confessions added little on the disputed question of whether Harrington was armed; indeed, both stated that they did not see the white participant with a gun. Their statements merely placed Harrington at the scene, a point established independently by Harrington, Rhone, and other witnesses.

The Court rejected an approach that would require reversal whenever one could speculate that a single juror might have been influenced by the improperly admitted evidence. Instead, it assessed the probable effect of the confessions on an average jury after reviewing the entire record. Because the case against Harrington was overwhelmingly established without the two confessions, the Court concluded that the constitutional error did not warrant reversal.

Dissents

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan, joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Marshall, maintained that the majority effectively abandoned Chapman while claiming to apply it. In his view, Chapman asks whether the constitutional error made no contribution to the conviction, not whether the remaining evidence was strong enough to support a conviction without the tainted proof.

The majority’s focus on “overwhelming” untainted evidence, he argued, shifts appellate review away from the actual impact of the unconstitutional evidence on the jury. That shift risks insulating constitutional violations whenever the prosecution has assembled substantial other proof and weakens the deterrent force of decisions protecting defendants from unlawful police, prosecutorial, and trial-court conduct.

The relevant question was Harrington’s participation in the attempted robbery, rather than merely his presence at the scene. The eyewitness accounts were weakened because the witnesses initially reported that all the perpetrators were Black, and Rhone’s account was potentially self-serving because he was found with a gun and attributed its possession to Harrington. The two nontestifying codefendants’ confessions were less self-serving and could have tipped jurors toward conviction. California therefore had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that those confessions made no contribution to the verdict.