Pitts v. Mississippi · ¶26

Having resolved that much, we pause to underscore what we leave unresolved. Just because a constitutional error took place at trial does not necessarily mean a new one must be held. Even constitutional errors are sometimes subject to a “harmless-error” rule and do not require a new trial if the prosecution can show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 23–24 (1967). This Court has held that the denial of the right to face-toface confrontation is among those errors “subject to that harmless-error analysis.” Coy, 487 U. S., at 1021. Accordingly, on remand the State remains free to argue, and the Mississippi Supreme Court remains free to consider, whether the error in this case warrants a new trial under the harmless-error standard.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.