Brecht v. Abrahamson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 · Federal Courts

507 U.S. 619 (1993)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsharmless error on habeashabeas corpusharmless errorKotteakosChapmanDoylepost-Miranda silence

Facts

At Brecht's murder trial, he admitted shooting Roger Hartman but claimed the shooting was accidental. The State impeached that account by pointing out that Brecht had not said before trial that the shooting was an accident, including references to his silence after he had received Miranda warnings at arraignment. The prosecution also made several closing references to that pretrial silence, though the post-Miranda references were limited. Other evidence contradicted Brecht's accident story, including the bullet's path, the rifle's location outside the house, the absence of anything in the hallway that could have caused him to trip, and other circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Issue

On federal habeas review of a state conviction involving a Doyle violation, does the Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard govern, or instead does the Kotteakos substantial-and-injurious-effect standard apply? If the latter standard applies, was Brecht entitled to habeas relief on this record?

Rule

For federal habeas review of constitutional error of the trial type, the governing harmless-error standard is not Chapman. Habeas relief is warranted only if the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict, i.e., caused actual prejudice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a Colorado murder prosecution, the prosecutor improperly impeached Devin Morales with his post-Miranda silence. The Colorado Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutional error on direct review but held it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Devin later files a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

What harmless-error standard should the federal habeas court apply in deciding whether the conviction must be set aside?

Explanation. On federal habeas review of constitutional trial error, the governing standard is the Kotteakos standard: whether the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt governs direct review, not collateral review.