State v. Mathis  ·  2019-09-12  ·  Ohio Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 23 L. Ed. 2d at 250

“Where evidence has been improperly admitted in derogation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights, the admission is harmless ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ if the remaining evidence alone comprises ‘overwhelming’ proof of defendant's guilt.”

State v. Kennedy  ·  2018-12-14  ·  Ohio Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 23 L. Ed. 2d at 250

“evidence * * * improperly admitted in derogation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights * * * is harmless ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ if the remaining evidence alone comprises ‘overwhelming’ proof of defendant’s guilt”

State v. Barnett  ·  2018-10-12  ·  Ohio Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 23 L. Ed. 2d at 250

“evidence * * * improperly admitted in derogation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights * * * is harmless ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ if the remaining evidence alone comprises ‘overwhelming’ proof of defendant’s guilt”

United States v. Schwartz  ·  2008-09-05  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 23 L. Ed. 2d at 250

“Our judgment must be based on our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact of the [codefendant statements] on the minds of an average jury.”

Fields v. United States  ·  2008-04-10  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 23 L. Ed. 2d at 250

“We do not depart from Chapman; nor do we dilute it by inference. We reaffirm it.”

United States v. Simmons  ·  2004-06-01  ·  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 23 L. Ed. 2d at 250

“Our judgment must be based on our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact of the two confessions on the minds of an average jury.”