Circuit split · criminal procedure
Whether a federal habeas court must conduct a harmless-error analysis when reviewing a capital sentencing proceeding that rested on an invalid statutory aggravating circumstance
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Flamer v. Delaware68 F3D 736
Third Circuit Court of Appeals · October 19, 1995
“There is a split among the circuits as to whether a federal habeas court must conduct a harmless error analysis when reviewing a capital sentencing proceeding that involved an invalid statutory aggravating circumstance.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- On the other side · 4th Cir.Smith v. Dixon14 F.3d 956
“Dixon, 14 F.3d 956 , 974-81 (4th Cir.1994) (in banc) (holding that a federal habeas court must review constitutional errors of the state trial and sentencing proceedings for harmlessness) and Williams v.” — Flamer v. Delaware, acknowledging the split
- On the other side · 8th Cir.Williams v. Clarke40 F.3d 1529
- Declined to follow · 5th Cir.Wiley v. Puckett969 F.2d 86
“Puckett, 969 F.2d 86 , 94 n.8 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that federal courts may not conduct harmless error analysis in the context of invalid statutory aggravating circumstances in capital sentencing proceeding) and Dixon, 14 F.3d at 988-93 (Sprouse, J.” — Flamer v. Delaware, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Doctrines & tests:
- constitutional harmless-error analysis
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.