United States v. James Hunt

(dissenting):

I cannot agree with the court’s memorandum decision set out in the margin. Its holding that the admission of twelve packets of heroin disclosed by an allegedly ille gal search did not contribute to appellant’s conviction does not conform to the spirit of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of this evidence was harmless error. Therefore, I must dissent.

In Chapman v. California, supra, the Court adopted the strict test for determining harmless error announced in Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963): “ ‘The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” Chapman v. California, supra at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 827 , quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, supra at 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229 . Rephrased, before a court may hold a federal constitutional error harmless, it must find that beyond a reasonable doubt the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. Recognizing the dangers of looking primarily at the overwhelming evidence supportive of the verdict, the Court…