Abstract
QUESTIONS of harmless constitutional error produce sharp disagreement among judges. Although differing philosophies about criminal procedure undoubtedly play their part, some of the conflict results from the infirmities of verbal definitions of harmless error. The English language, unfortunately, often falls short of complete accuracy when conveying abstractions. Words are inexact tools at best, said the Supreme Court in 1943.3 In 1946, the Court further acknowledged this defect when it specifically said that the judgment required by harmless-error rules cannot ever be wholly imprisoned in words.4 More than a quarter of a century overflowing with cases has failed to cure the defect: the process of determining when an error is harmless continues to defy articulation.5
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
