Simmons, Jannace & Stagg
Fry v. Pliler
In the Fry v. Pliler case, the defendant Mr. John Fry was previously convicted on two counts of murder in the first degree for the deaths of Cynthia and James Bell in the state of California by the Superior Court. Once the conviction was handed down, Mr. Fry received a life sentence. In turn, Mr. Fry filed a habeas petition and the district court denied the petition. The habeas petition argued that the district court of California had erroneously prohibited the testimony of a female that was willing to testify as to hearing a discussion that it was her cousin that had committed a double murder and it was Fry's assertion that he was being convicted for another individual's crimes.
On June 11, 2007 the US Supreme Court denied Fry's petition and asserted via a unanimous decision that any error that occurred during the court's proceedings was not detrimental to the final outcome of the case. The decision of the court was based on the outcome of another case, Brecht v. Abrahamson: a case that set the standard in which a error considered harmless would have no bearing on a court ruling. Fry based his initial habeas petition on the Chapman v. California ruling which permits convicted individuals to argue against errors in judgment that may or may not have had a sufficient effect on the outcome of the trial. The Supreme Court argued that a certain degree of caution should be utilized in every case - that an error must be deemed considerable in terms of its potential to have an harmful effect on the individual's case before the Brecht v. Abrahamson standard could actually apply.
Click here to learn more about Debra L. Wabnik of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg
