By Robert Simels
Originally published in amNewYork on
Read the full commentary on amNewYork
Robert Simels examines the harmless error doctrine, the rule that lets an appeals court uphold a conviction even when it finds that the trial judge made a mistake. He starts with the standard every juror hears, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and notes how rarely convictions are reversed on appeal.
The doctrine was meant as a tool of restraint, so that minor slips such as a misnumbered exhibit would not require a new trial. Simels traces its modern form to the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in Chapman v. California and argues that courts now apply it far more broadly. In his view, appellate judges too often predict that the jury would have convicted anyway, speculate about whether the defendant was really harmed, and blend the analysis with deferential review of trial rulings.
He illustrates the point with the Eleventh Circuit case of Elizabeth Hernandez, a Medicare fraud defendant. The trial court gave the prosecution 40 minutes for closing argument and the defense only 30. The appeals court agreed that was an error but called it harmless.
Simels compares the trend to the good faith exception, which lets courts excuse flawed police conduct. He proposes a test focused on process rather than prediction: the question should be whether the error undermined the legal framework the trial court was required to follow, with significant errors presumed prejudicial and leading to a new trial.
Read the full commentary on amNewYork
This page is a summary prepared for robertsimels.com. The full commentary was published by amNewYork and remains on amNewYork's site.
Robert Simels. Robert Simels hosts the podcast Injustice for All and serves as a consultant on criminal justice matters. He is no longer practicing law.
About Robert Simels Listen to Injustice for All