Brecht applies to all habeas cases
In Fry v. Pliler, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Ninth Circuit ruling denying habeas relief where no substantial and injurious effect was shown from the exclusion of a witness’ testimony.
The Court held that the Brecht “substantial and injurious effect” standard applies in all habeas cases, regardless of whether the constitutional error in a state trial is recognized for the first time in the habeas proceeding, and the state courts never considered the error under the Chapman standard.
Justice Stevens concurring in part and dissenting in par, agreed that Brecht is the proper standard for cases such as Fry’s. However, he would have reversed the decision below on the ground that the decision to exclude the witness’s testimony did have a “substantial and injurious effect.”
