{{Use American English|date=January 2026}} {{Use mdy dates|date=January 2026}} {{Infobox SCOTUS case |Litigants=Fry v. Pliler |ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= |DecideDate=June 11 |DecideYear=2007 |FullName= |USVol=551 |USPage=112 |Docket= |ParallelCitations= |Prior= |Subsequent= |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. |Majority=Scalia |JoinMajority=Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (all but Part II–B); Breyer (all but footnote 1 and Part II–B) |Concurrence/Dissent=Stevens |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Souter, Ginsburg; Breyer (in part) |Concurrence/Dissent2=Breyer |LawsApplied=Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 }} __NOTOC__ '''''Fry v. Pliler''''', {{ussc|volume=551|page=112|year=2007|el=no}}, 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.<ref name="case">{{ussc|name=Fry v. Pliler|volume=551|page=112|year=2007}}.</ref><ref>Joseph J. Langkamer, Harmless Error and AEDPA: Brecht's Applicability after Fry, 80 Temp. L. Rev. 529 (Summer 2007).</ref><ref name="Hannah2008">Jessica L. Hannah & Kevan P. McLaughlin, On Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court's Review of Ninth Circuit Cases during the October 2006 Term, 38 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 409 (Spring 2008).</ref>
==Background== <!-- Facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. --> John Francis Fry was charged with two counts of first-degree murder in connection to the October 27, 1992 murders of James and Cynthia Bell. The trial judge presiding over Fry's third criminal trial excluded the testimony of defense-witness Pamela Marie Maples. Maples was the cousin of Anthony Hurtz, who Fry asserted had confessed to committing the murders. Fry was convicted.<ref name="Hannah2008"/>
Fry argued on appeal that the exclusion of Maples' testimony violated ''Chambers v. Mississippi'', which held that a combination of erroneous evidentiary rulings rose to the level of a due-process violation. The California Court of Appeal did not explicitly address that argument in affirming, but it stated, without specifying which harmless-error standard it was applying, that "no possible prejudice" could have resulted in light of the cumulative nature of Maples' testimony. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review.<ref name="case"/>
Fry then filed a federal ''habeas corpus'' petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, raising the due-process issue and other claims.<ref name="Hannah2008"/> The Magistrate Judge found that the state appellate court's failure to recognize Chambers error was an unreasonable application of clearly established law as set forth by the Supreme Court. Further, it disagreed with the state court's finding of "no possible prejudice". However, it concluded there was an insufficient showing that the improper exclusion of Maples' testimony had a "substantial and injurious effect" on the jury's verdict under ''Brecht v. Abrahamson''. Agreeing, the district court denied relief.<ref name="case"/>
When the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Fry argued that the district court should not have used the ''Brecht'' test because the California Court of Appeals never conducted a prejudice review. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Fry that Maple's testimony was "material and would have substantially bolstered [Fry's] claims of innocence because she was sufficiently reliable and overheard Hurtz's confession of a double homicide." Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed because it agreed with the district court's application of ''Brecht''.<ref name="Hannah2008"/>
==Opinion of the court== <!-- Oral arguments can go at the beginning of this section. It should contain a summary of the court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited. Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers. --> {{Expand section|date=January 2026}} The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 11, 2007.<ref name="case"/>
==Later developments== <!-- (if applicable) Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. --> {{Empty section|date=January 2026}}
== References == {{reflist}}
==External links== * {{caselaw source | case = {{ussc|name=Fry v. Pliler|volume=551|page=112|year=2007|el=no}} | internetarchive = {{IA SCOTUS URL |us=551 U.S. 112}} | justia = https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/112/case.html }}
{{USGovernment-courts}} {{SCOTUS-Roberts-stub}}
Category:June 2007 in the United States Category:United States Supreme Court cases in 2007 Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court Category:Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act case law Category:United States harmless error case law