Fry v. Pliler
| Fry v. Pliler | |
|---|---|
| Decided June 11, 2007 | |
| Full case name | Fry v. Pliler |
| Citations | 551 U.S. 112 (more) |
| Holding | |
| In AEDPA proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the "substantial and injurious effect" standard from Brecht v. Abrahamson, whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (all but Part II–B); Breyer (all but footnote 1 and Part II–B) |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg; Breyer (in part) |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 | |
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that in AEDPA proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the "substantial and injurious effect" standard from Brecht v. Abrahamson, whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness.