Gamache v. California
2010 U.S. LEXIS 9043
SCOTUS2010Background
- Gamache was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to death.
- During deliberations, the jury was given a videotape not admitted into evidence.
- The jury watched the tape twice in full and a third time in part, showing Gamache confessing in graphic terms.
- California Supreme Court treated the error as trial error, not juror misconduct, and conducted a harmless‑error analysis without applying a presumption of prejudice.
- The court adhered to Chapman v. California, requiring the State to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Justice Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, would deny certiorari but cautions about burden allocation potentially affecting outcomes in capital cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the videotape error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Gamache contends the error was prejudicial and not harmless. | California treated the error as harmless and followed Chapman. | Certiorari denial; harmlessness upheld |
| Whether California's burden allocation as to harmlessness complied with Chapman. | State bears the burden; allocation contravenes Chapman. | Burden allocation would not have altered prejudice analysis. | Certiorari denial; burden allocation not shown to alter outcome |
| Whether the potential burden allocation could be outcome‑determinative in capital cases. | Allocation can be decisive in capital cases. | In this case, it did not change the result. | Not dispositive here; concern acknowledged |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965) (trial by jury requires evidence be developed in a public courtroom)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑error standard for constitutional trial errors)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (focus on whether shackling errors are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (addressing harmless‑error review where the government has burden)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (supreme court’s de novo review for harmlessness; burden allocation concerns)
- O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (Chapman described as placing risk of doubt on the State)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (duty to search for constitutional error in capital cases)
- Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987) (capital case cautions on error review and prejudice)