THE RIDDLE OF HARMLESS ERROR REVISITED

Half a century ago, in Chapman v. California, the Supreme Court imposed on appellate courts an obligation to vacate or reverse criminal judgments marred by constitutional error unless the government demonstrates that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. But the Court did not explain the juridical status of this obligation or its relation to the federal harmless-error statute. In the intervening years, commentators have struggled to make sense of Chapman. Here, Greabe takes a fresh look at what the Constitution requires of reviewing courts when they conclude that a criminal judgment has been tainted by constitutional error. He suggests that new insights may be found by situating harmless-error doctrine within a broader, transcontextual analysis of how constitutional remedies function. He then demonstrates how understanding what the Constitution requires of reviewing courts can serve as a springboard for necessary reform.