Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010We have found constitutional error harmless where the government presented “overwhelming evidence of guilt” or “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Smith v. United States, 966 A.2d 367, 391 (D.C.2009) (quoting Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2010We have found constitutional error harmless where the government presented “overwhelming evidence of guilt” or “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Smith v. United States, 966 A.2d 367, 391 (D.C.2009) (quoting Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Gardner v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025“We have found constitutional error harmless 31 where the government presented overwhelming evidence of guilt or it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Gardner v. United States, 999 A.2d 55, 58 (D.C. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 First, the cross-examination of Sergeant Batton plus the instructions provided by the trial court substantially mitigated any prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010We have found constitutional error harmless where the government presented “overwhelming evidence of guilt” or “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Smith v. United States, 966 A.2d 367, 391 (D.C.2009) (quoting Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2010Even if the government had presented more convincing evidence, we cannot underestimate the weight that juries give to forensic evidence, particularly DNA evidence. 17 Without the evidence that the appellant had the victim’s blood on his clothing, it is certainly not “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Smith, supra, 966 A.2d at 391 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harrington v. California
red
2 sentences2010We have found constitutional error harmless where the government presented “overwhelming evidence of guilt” or “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Smith v. United States, 966 A.2d 367, 391 (D.C.2009) (quoting Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2010We have found constitutional error harmless where the government presented “overwhelming evidence of guilt” or “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Smith v. United States, 966 A.2d 367, 391 (D.C.2009) (quoting Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2009–2010 |
Fields v. United States
green
1 sentence2009The relevant inquiry is whether the government can show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained,” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ; whether at trial the government presented “overwhelming evidence” of guilt, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error,” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) 45 ; or whether-it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a ratio | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sullivan v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2009The relevant inquiry is whether the government can show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained,” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ; whether at trial the government presented “overwhelming evidence” of guilt, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error,” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) 45 ; or whether-it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a ratio 2009The relevant inquiry is whether the government can show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained,” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ; whether at trial the government presented “overwhelming evidence” of guilt, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error,” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) 45 ; or whether-it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a ratio | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2009The relevant inquiry is whether the government can show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained,” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ; whether at trial the government presented “overwhelming evidence” of guilt, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error,” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) 45 ; or whether-it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a ratio 2009The relevant inquiry is whether the government can show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained,” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ; whether at trial the government presented “overwhelming evidence” of guilt, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error,” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) 45 ; or whether-it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a ratio | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2008Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 680 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 . [Tjhere lies the need for evidence in all its particularity to satisfy the jurors’ expectations about what proper proof should be. 2008Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 680 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 . [Tjhere lies the need for evidence in all its particularity to satisfy the jurors’ expectations about what proper proof should be. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Schneble v. Florida
green
2 sentences2005“Thus, unless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 432 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (stating that erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence in violation of Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights is subject to a harmless error inquiry that asks “Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?”); Morten, supr 2005“Thus, unless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 432 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (stating that erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence in violation of Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights is subject to a harmless error inquiry that asks “Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?”); Morten, supr | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Morten v. United States
green
2 sentences2005“Thus, unless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 432 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (stating that erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence in violation of Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights is subject to a harmless error inquiry that asks “Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?”); Morten, supr 2005“Thus, unless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 432 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (stating that erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence in violation of Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights is subject to a harmless error inquiry that asks “Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?”); Morten, supr | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.