Harmless Error Research Articles

HỌC THUYẾT VI PHẠM VÔ HẠI TRONG TƯ PHÁP HÌNH SỰ HOA KỲ VÀ VI PHẠM TỐ TỤNG KHÔNG LÀM THAY ĐỔI BẢN CHẤT VỤ ÁN TẠI VIỆT NAM

During the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of criminal cases, there is carry the risk of procedural violations and errors. When conducting appellate or cassation trials, it is crucial to determine the seriousness or harmlessness of any procedural offences to decide whether to cancel the judgment for re-investigation or re-trial. The authors introduce the doctrine of “harmless error” in the United States criminal justice system and analyzes the “procedural violations that do not change the nature of the case” in Vietnam. Finally, the authors recommend developing regulations on this type of violation in Vietnam’s criminal procedure lane.

Assessing Harmless Errors in Offenses against Human Body and Property: A Review of Court Decisions

The current study aims to identify different harmless errors in crimes involving harm to the human body and property. An error that is deemed "harmless" refers to errors made in a judicial decision that do not lead to the overturning of said decision. Many studies have been conducted abroad to identify harmless errors in the background of various subjects, such as constitutional law, criminal law, and civil law. Unfortunately, there is a lack of research on harmless errors in criminal cases in Pakistan. Through the use of qualitative content analysis, this study discovered that despite various issues such as delays, failure to fulfill legal requirements, and incomplete testimonies, the appellate court upheld the conviction of the accused. According to the study, the appellate courts did not give sufficient consideration to the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and other evidence related to minor matters, nor did they adequately address the prosecution's presentation or lack of certain witnesses and evidence. This study will provide valuable insights for both academics and professionals seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the non-malicious errors that can occur in offenses involving harm to the human body and property.

Trial and Error: A Comparative Perspective on the Lay Participation in Criminal Trials and Appellate Review of Errors in Taiwan

Taiwan follows its East Asian counterparts to establish a system of lay participation in criminal trials, which is called citizen judges and took effect in January 2023. But Taiwan will soon face similar conundrums, like Japan and South Korea have encountered, about whether to allow professional judges to review and even reverse decisions made by citizen judges. In a mock case, the Taiwan High Court and Taiwan’s Supreme Court both attempted to address the conflict from a perspective of American law, but more controversies have emerged than been solved. This Article follows the route of the two courts and deals with those unsettled controversies in four aspects: legal errors, factual errors, sentencing errors, and the mixed questions of law and fact. This Article advises appellate courts to: (1) employ principles like preservation of claims, plain errors, and harmless errors when reviewing legal errors de novo, (2) incorporate the substantial evidence review with the existing law into a two-step test, through which the appellate review of factual errors may work better, (3) interpret the standard of exceeding unreasonableness in an abuse-of-discretion way when investigating errors in sentencing, and (4) replace the de novo standard with a spectrum approach when reviewing the errors of impropriety, namely the mixed question of law and fact in Taiwan’s context. Through these adjustments in the appellate review process, the new system of citizen judges will better serve to enhance the public knowledge of and confidence in criminal trials as the new system has been entailed.

Exceptions to the concept of «fruit of the poisonous tree»: application in judicial practice

The article discloses and details the statement about the desabsolutization of the concept based on modern scientific developments and judicial practice of the Supreme Court (Ukraine), legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States. The main rules-exceptions: «independent source», «inavitable discovery, «purged taint», «harmless error» and «good-faith exception» formed under the influence of the Anglo-Saxon legal system are highlighted. The essence of each of them is analyzed in view of the international historical excursion and the modern law enforcement practice of diferent courts. The problem of the lack of unity in the perception of the specified exceptions at both the applied and the doctrinal level due to their genesis, the uncertainty of their application in the national criminal process is highlighted, and ways to solve it are proposed. It is noted that the Supreme Court (of Ukraine) actively borrows progressive foreign experience, including through the prism of "fruit of the poisonous tree" exceptions, but in correlation with the peculiarities of the national legal system.It has been proven that their use requires careful research taking into account the circumstances of a specific case, because international standards of observance of human rights and freedoms should have a guiding influence on national courts. Аt the same time their unjustified use can lead to a violation of the rights and freedoms of a person in the process of criminal proceedings and to an unfair trial, in general. It has been argued that exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule are justified as long as they serve as compensatory mechanisms to ensure the fairness of the trial as an international standard.At the same time, our analysis of judicial practice and scientific sources provides grounds for asserting that, unlike the very concept of "fruits of the poisonous tree", exceptions to it are not characterized by unity in perception and application at both the applied and doctrinal levels.

THE MANY LIVES OF CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY

THE MANY LIVES OF CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY

Brief for Professor Daniel Epps as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Pon. v. United States

This brief on behalf of Professor Daniel Epps argues that the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari in Pon v. United States as this case presents an excellent opportunity for the Court to clarify the doctrine of harmless constitutional error and provide needed guidance for lower courts. Although this Court established a rule for harmless constitutional errors in Chapman v. California, it has never answered a set of fundamental questions raised by that decision. For example, the Court has never explained what source of law generates the Chapman rule or what its relationship is to the governing federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2111. The leading view is that harmless error is part of the law of remedies. Others believe that it is mandated by constitutional due-process guarantees. Amicus’s own theory is that harmless error flows directly from the underlying constitutional rights at issue in an appeal. This larger debate about harmless constitutional error is of more than merely academic interest. Trying to understand harmless error’s foundations is necessary if the Court is to explain how harmless-error analysis should work in practice. If harmless constitutional error is a wholly remedial doctrine, then an approach like the Eleventh Circuit’s—which looks to “overwhelming evidence of guilt”—may well be permissible. But as opinions from jurists ranging from Justice Brennan to Justice Scalia show, powerful intuitions about harmless error contradict the Eleventh Circuit’s approach. Rather than asking about whether a jury in an alternate universe would have convicted the defendant had the error never occurred, courts instead must ask “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”

Calculation of the Best Fit Subreflector and Its Application in Eliminating the Harmless Error of Deformed Large Subreflectors

For a dual reflector antenna whose subreflector is also equivalent to a large reflector antenna, its structure will inevitably be deformed due to the effect of gravity, wind, temperature, and so on. This article is inspired by the homologous idea applied to main reflectors and extends this idea to subreflectors to eliminate the harmless error of the distorted subsurface by using the best fit surface of the same type. This article proposes seven parameters to determine the best fit subreflector (BFS): five rigid parameters (three translation and two rotation parameters) and two parameters related to the change of the subreflector shape. These seven homology parameters are calculated by the least square method (LSM). The subreflector of the QiTai radio telescope (QTT) is used in two examples. The first example shows that the proposed method can effectively calculate the BFS surface and obtain the accuracy that has eliminated the harmless error of the distorted subreflector. In the second example, the accuracy without harmless error is used in the classical design so that the homologous design of the subreflector structure is realized. The excellent results show the validity of the proposed method and provide an important reference for the structure design of large subreflectors.

COVID-19 and Formal Wills

Most Americans do not have a will. The reasons are easy to understand. Thinking about death is unpleasant, and hiring a lawyer is expensive. However, as COVID-19 sweeps through the country, some Americans urgently need an estate plan. Unfortunately, U.S. law makes it difficult to create a will during crises like these. Indeed, twenty-five states and the District of Columbia recognize only one type of will: a “formal” will executed in compliance with the Wills Act. Under this ancient statute, wills must be written, signed by the testator, and also witnessed by two people who were present at the same time. As journalists and lawyers are recognizing, the Wills Act’s insistence that the parties physically occupy the same space creates unprecedented roadblocks during a time of widespread quarantine and shelter-in-place orders. Yet the pandemic has also arrived during a period in which wills law is in flux. In the last two decades, a handful of jurisdictions have begun excusing harmless errors during the will-execution process. And, in an even sharper departure from the Wills Act’s stuffy norms, four states have recently authorized electronic wills. This Essay argues that COVID-19 vividly highlights the shortcomings of formal wills. Indeed, the outbreak has exposed the main problem with the Wills Act: it makes will-making inaccessible. As a result, we urge lawmakers in states that cling to the statute to liberalize the requirements for creating a will. Our argument proceeds in three Parts. Part I details the social value of will-making. Part II describes the Wills Act and explains why it creates formidable obstacles for testators who are caught in the jaws of a pandemic. Part III explores four ways in which policymakers can solve this problem: by permitting holographic wills, adopting the harmless error doctrine, enacting electronic will legislation, or temporarily suspending certain elements of the Wills Act during public health emergencies.

Can Constitutional Error be Harmless?

Chapman v. California held that federal constitutional error in a state criminal proceeding does not require reversal if the state can establish that the error was harmless. Writing about Chapman several years after it was decided, Professor DanielJ. Meltzer observed that in fact the case had decided two propositions: first, that constitutional errors can be deemed harmless; and second, that federal law determines the issue of harmlessness. Professor Meltzer then focused exclusively on the second proposition, concluding that it was sound. We focus here on the first proposition and demonstrate that harmless error doctrine is conceptually incoherent. We argue that in view of this incoherence, constitutional errors ought not to be subject to harmless error review. In short, Chapman should be overruled.

The Right Approach to Harmless Error

My article “Harmless Errors and Substantial Rights” challenged conventional wisdom about the harmless constitutional error doctrine in criminal procedure. Specifically, I contended that the traditional way of understanding harmless error as a remedial doctrine rooted in so-called “constitutional common law” created significant anomalies. Instead, harmless constitutional error doctrine can only be understood as part of the definition and judicial enforcement of constitutional rights. Few legal scholars have thought as deeply about the mysteries of harmless error as Professor John M. Greabe, and he is well equipped to give the remedial perspective the best possible defense. Nonetheless, despite Professor Greabe’s able efforts in his response piece “Criminal Procedure Rights and Harmless Error: A Response to Professor Epps,” I remain persuaded of the correctness of the rights-based approach to harmless error laid out in my article. In this short Reply, I explain why. First, I respond to Professor Greabe’s most significant criticisms of my rights-based approach, and show why I think they miss the mark. Second, I explain why Professor Greabe’s own remedy-based theory is itself problematic and unable to solve the enduring riddles of harmless error.

,,,Testamentary Transfers and the Intent Versus Formalities Debate: The Case for a ‘Charitable’ Common Ground

The dominant issue in the law of wills for much of last half century has been how much formality the law should require before giving effect to a party’s testamentary intent. The traditionalists favor: (1) the maintaining the prevailing approach to the Wills Act formalities; (2) strict enforcement of those formalities; and (3) courts having the power to construe but not reform a will. The intent-oriented advocates favor: (1) reducing the Wills Act formalities to a minimum; (2) granting courts the power to dispense with those formalities under the harmless error doctrine; and (3) granting courts the power to reform a will, even if there is no ambiguity in the will. The problem is the underlying variables inherent in the debate are so indeterminate (what is the value of testamentary intent; how much increased costs of administration and potential for fraud is there in the harmless error and/or power-to-reform doctrines), it is tough to imagine much movement in the debate. Recent developments, however, shed a new light on the debate. The debate has overlooked a variable – charitable gifts – that offers a common ground where the two sides should agree. The public benefits associated with saving failed charitable testamentary gifts more than offset the increased administrative costs and potential for fraud associated with the harmless error and power-to-reform doctrines. That conclusion, however, also reframes the issue with respect to the remaining universe of failed testamentary gifts. Do the benefits derived from saving failed noncharitable testamentary gifts exceed the increased administrative costs and potential for fraud associated with the harmless error and power-to-reform doctrines?

The Socioeconomics of Twenty-First Century Wills Formalities

Individuals have executed wills the same way for centuries. But over time, traditional traditional requirements have relaxed. This Article makes two principal claims, both of which disrupt fundamental assumptions about the purposes and functions of wills formalities. First, the traditional requirements that a will must be in writing and signed by the testator in the presence of (or acknowledged before) witnesses have never adequately served the stated their stated purposes. For that reason, strict compliance with formalities cannot be justified by their cautionary, protective, evidentiary and channeling functions. Reducing or eliminating most of the long-standing requirements for execution of a will is consistent with the true purpose of wills formalities – authenticating a document as the one executed by the testator with the intention of having it serve as the binding directive for the post-mortem distribution of the testator’s property. This Article’s account has important implications for the way that legal scholars, lawmakers and lawyers think about wills. The Article’s second claim is that the substantive standard of the harmless error rule – that the decedent intended a particular document to be the decedent’s last will and testament – should be the only threshold that must be satisfied for a court to admit the document to probate. Widespread adoption of such an intent-based rule is preferable to one that is overly formalistic. Current formalism leads both to false positives (i.e., grant of probate to a document not intended by the decedent as the decedent’s will) and false negatives (i.e., denial of probate of document clearly intended by the decedent as the decedent’s will). An intent-based rule would make more likely the valid execution of wills by poor and middle-income people who typically cannot or do not consult attorneys. An intent-based standard also sets the stage for widespread recognition of electronic wills, if states are able to address concerns about authentication, fraud and safekeeping of electronic documents. Technological developments could make estate planning in the twenty-first century more accessible than ever before to people of all wealth and income levels if the legal profession is prepared to embrace new ways of executing wills.

Safety in Post-Conviction Proceedings

It is extremely difficult to correct an error after conviction. Given the Hidden Accidents Principle in criminal law, it is very hard to uncover mistakes and even harder to prove them. Time is one of the greatest enemies of reconstructing the truth. Evidence gets lost, potential witnesses forget, move away, or die. The legal rules, including the finality of verdicts rule, hinder the rectification of miscarriages of justice. Another factor is that once the indictment has been made, the police usually close their investigation. Even when the appellate court finds a defect in the original trial proceedings, it will most likely be deemed “harmless error.” Thus, the finality of proceedings rule in fact already applies with the handing down of the verdict at trial, even before appeal. The main procedural mechanism intended for correcting miscarriages of justice is a motion for a new trial. But this mechanism is not effective. Since safety theory and safety measures are not yet developed in the criminal justice system, we have to learn it from other areas, such as aviation, transportation and engineering. In order to bring SAFETY to post-conviction proceedings, this essay offers some safety measures.

The interdependence of perceived confession voluntariness and case evidence.

The current research investigated the mechanisms by which perceptions of confession evidence both influence and are influenced by perceptions of other case evidence using the theoretical framework of coherence-based reasoning (CBR). CBR posits that ambiguity and uncertainty are eschewed by artificially imposing consistency between pieces of evidence through bidirectional reasoning: Inferences about evidence lead to a preferred verdict, which in turn radiates backward to influence the perception of evidence. Two studies tested the CBR account with regard to confessions. An online sample of participants evaluated confession and nonconfession evidence at pretest and posttest. Study 1 revealed that, during pretest, participants (N = 119) deemed the evidence independent and nonprobative and the confession to be voluntary. However, at posttest, in the context of a criminal trial, participants considered the same evidence interrelated and highly inculpatory or exculpatory, depending on their verdict. Moreover, participants who voted to convict deemed the confession substantially voluntary, whereas participants who voted to acquit deemed it involuntary. Study 2 experimentally manipulated the strength of the nonconfession evidence in an effort to push participants (N = 127) toward a particular verdict. The same patterns of results emerged but were conditional on the strength of the nonconfession evidence: Strong case evidence caused the confession to be perceived as more voluntary, despite the fact that the confession was held constant. These findings replicate the coherence effect in a new domain and suggest that judges conducting harmless error analysis or making admissibility decisions might underappreciate the impact of confession evidence on jurors' verdicts. (PsycINFO Database Record

Descriptive analysis of medication errors reported to the Egyptian national online reporting system during six months

This study analyzes reports to the Egyptian medication error (ME) reporting system from June to December 2014. Fifty hospital pharmacists received training on ME reporting using the national reporting system. All received reports were reviewed and analyzed. The pieces of data analyzed were patient age, gender, clinical setting, stage, type, medication(s), outcome, cause(s), and recommendation(s). Over the course of 6 months, 12,000 valid reports were gathered and included in this analysis. The majority (66%) came from inpatient settings, while 23% came from intensive care units, and 11% came from outpatient departments. Prescribing errors were the most common type of MEs (54%), followed by monitoring (25%) and administration errors (16%). The most frequent error was incorrect dose (20%) followed by drug interactions, incorrect drug, and incorrect frequency. Most reports were potential (25%), prevented (11%), or harmless (51%) errors; only 13% of reported errors lead to patient harm. The top three medication classes involved in reported MEs were antibiotics, drugs acting on the central nervous system, and drugs acting on the cardiovascular system. Causes of MEs were mostly lack of knowledge, environmental factors, lack of drug information sources, and incomplete prescribing. Recommendations for addressing MEs were mainly staff training, local ME reporting, and improving work environment. There are common problems among different healthcare systems, so that sharing experiences on the national level is essential to enable learning from MEs. Internationally, there is a great need for standardizing ME terminology, to facilitate knowledge transfer. Underreporting, inaccurate reporting, and a lack of reporter diversity are some limitations of this study. Egypt now has a national database of MEs that allows researchers and decision makers to assess the problem, identify its root causes, and develop preventive strategies.

The Dilemma and Debate Over Confession Evidence Strategies

This article discusses the problems identified by recent DNA exonerations history. It addresses the need for policy changes that emphasizes greater reliance on DNA evidence collection and analysis, and less faith in confession evidence. Moreover, it discusses the fact that of the 300 DNA exonerations to date, 20-25% of those exonerations included confession evidence despite the innocence of those inmates. This article makes recommendations for Congressional legislation promoting change in three aspects: (1) recognition and restoration of the Escobedo Assertion as the guiding principle for law enforcement; (2) consistent with other jurisdictions, when interrogating, the process should be recorded; and (3) when an appellate court determines confessions are coerced, the matter should be remanded for a new trial, since confessions are too prejudicial for the harmless error doctrine to apply. These recommendations and the intent of this article are to prevent or reduce the number of false confessions in the future. The subject is then compared to the report by Durant Frantzen; Frantzen suggests additional studies were necessary. However, the report actually supports a finding that even law enforcement officers lack faith in the effective use of the various interrogation strategies being promoted around the United States to American police. Private Investigator, Jensen Investigations

Making Sense of Procedural Injury

This essay uses the Supreme Court’s 2009 opinion describing the version of the harmless error rule courts must use in administrative law cases as a point of entry in attempting to understand the Court’s 1992 opinion recognizing that 'procedural rights are special' for standing purposes. It concludes that courts should apply an easy-to-meet plausibility test in determining whether an agency’s refusal to provide a procedure required by statute or by the constitution has a causal relationship with the challenged agency action sufficient to allow the petitioner to obtain review of the action based on a procedural injury theory. Such a plausibility test complements well the administrative law version of the harmless error rule. By contrast, adoption of the 'substantially probable' test of causation suggested in an en banc opinion of the D.C. Circuit would have significant adverse effects on administrative law and would render the harmless error rule worthless.

Major Reforms of the Property Restatement and the Uniform Probate Code: Reformation, Harmless Error, and Nonprobate Transfers

In late 2011, the American Law Institute published the third and final volume of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers. In March 2012, the Restatement’s two reporters, Professors Lawrence W. Waggoner and John H. Langbein, presented the Joseph Trachtman Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel in Miami Beach. Introducing the two lecturers, ACTEC President Mary Radford described them as “two icons in our field, [who] have had a hand in every major development in trust and estate law that has occurred over the past three decades...” In separate but coordinated talks, under the title “Restating and Renewing the Law of Donative Transfers,” Professors Waggoner and Langbein discussed some of the main themes of the new Restatement and of related Uniform Law Commission initiatives. Professor Langbein’s lecture, revised for publication, appears here; Professor Waggoner’s appears in the following Article.

Conditional Relevance Under IRE 104(b) in Relation to Uncharged Misconduct Covered by IRE 404(b) and Related Problems Requiring Fact Analysis

One of the most challenging problems facing criminal defense counsel in an anticipated trial arises when the state attempts to introduce uncharged misconduct (other crimes) evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) for a relevant purpose other than “propensity” evidence barred by Rule 404(a). Often this evidence will involve alleged crimes for which the defendant has not nor will not be tried. As defense counsel we know that this type of evidence is highly prejudicial. Despite the state’s lofty claims that the evidence is independently relevant to show, “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident,” (and the availability of limiting instructions via Rule 105), jurors are more than likely to draw the, “he’s a bad guy so he is probably guilty,” inference.Often misunderstood and underutilized are the foundational requirements specified by Rule 104(b), (the so-called “conditional relevance” rule), that can be employed to inhibit misuse of evidence of uncharged misconduct under Rule 404(b).The techniques outlined below are useful also in addressing a variety of issues arising under Rule 401, 402, and 403; as well as claims of “harmless error” and insufficiency of evidence.

Why confessions trump innocence.

As illustrated by the story of Amanda Knox and many others wrongfully convicted, false confessions often trump factual innocence. Focusing on consequences, recent research suggests that confessions are powerfully persuasive as a matter of logic and common sense; that many false confessions contain richly detailed narratives and accurate crime facts that appear to betray guilty knowledge; and that confessions in general can corrupt other evidence from lay witnesses and forensic experts-producing an illusion of false support. This latter phenomenon, termed "corroboration inflation," suggests that pretrial corroboration requirements as well as the concept of "harmless error" on appeal are based on an erroneous presumption of independence among items of evidence. In addition to previously suggested reforms to police practices that are designed to curb the risk of false confessions, measures should be taken as well to minimize the rippling consequences of those confessions.