| dbo:abstract
|
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying the standard of review of a criminal defendant's allegedly coerced confession. The ruling was divided into parts, with various justices voting in different ways on different points of law, but ultimately 1) the defendant's confession was ruled involuntary, 2) the harmless error rule had to be applied, and 3) in this case, use of the confession as evidence was not harmless. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 16807 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-10-10 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Arizona v. Fulminante, (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-03-26 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Arizona v. Fulminante (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- The harmless error rule is applicable to the admission of involuntary confessions. (en)
- The admission of a confession in this case was not a harmless error. (en)
|
| dbp:joinconcurrence
|
- Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
|
- O'Connor; Scalia ; Kennedy, Souter (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens; Scalia ; Kennedy (en)
- O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
|
- Arizona v. Fulminante (en)
|
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
|
- White (en)
- Rehnquist (en)
|
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:source
|
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 288 (en)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309 (en)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 314 (en)
|
| dbp:text
|
- In the interests of providing a clear mandate to the Arizona Supreme Court in this capital case, I deem it proper to accept in the case now before us the holding of five Justices that the confession was coerced and inadmissible. I agree with a majority of the Court that admission of the confession could not be harmless error when viewed in light of all the other evidence; and so I concur in the judgment to affirm the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court. (en)
- The admission of an involuntary confession—a classic "trial error"—is markedly different from the other two constitutional violations referred to in the Chapman footnote as not being subject to harmless-error analysis. One of those violations, involved in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 , was the total deprivation of the right to counsel at trial. The other violation, involved in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 , was a judge who was not impartial. These are structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by "harmless-error" standards. (en)
- The Court has repeatedly stressed that the view that the admission of a coerced confession can be harmless error because of the other evidence to support the verdict is "an impermissible doctrine," for "the admission in evidence, over objection, of the coerced confession vitiates the judgment because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." As the decisions in Haynes and Payne show, the rule was the same even when another confession of the defendant had been properly admitted into evidence. Today, a majority of the Court, without any justification, overrules this vast body of precedent without a word and in so doing dislodges one of the fundamental tenets of our criminal justice system. [citations to 16 cases omitted] (en)
|
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying the standard of review of a criminal defendant's allegedly coerced confession. The ruling was divided into parts, with various justices voting in different ways on different points of law, but ultimately 1) the defendant's confession was ruled involuntary, 2) the harmless error rule had to be applied, and 3) in this case, use of the confession as evidence was not harmless. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Arizona v. Fulminante (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- Arizona v. Fulminante (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
