Vasquez v. United States (11-199)

argument 11-199

Vasquez v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue of the Vasquez v. United States harmless‑error argument?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case 11199, Vasquez v. United States. Mr. Brindley.

Patrick Brindley 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, when determining whether an error affects substantial rights pursuant to the harmless error statute, Court should first begin the analysis with the error itself, consider it in the context of the entire record, determine what potential impact it may have and then ask the question, can the government prove to the requisite degree of certitude, in this case fair assurance, that the error did not substantially impact the verdict of the jury that heard the case? It is impermissible for the reviewing court to merely ask the question of whether some other jury, a reasonable jury that didn't hear the error that this jury heard, would convict him and determine harmlessness on that basis?

Patrick Brindley 1:02

Stephen G. Breyer 1:02

problem is I can accept that formulation, certainly for purposes of this case. I just don't see where in the opinion — I have the opinion of the Court of Appeals. It focused on the wrong test. It didn't use the magic words. And it started out with, let's look at the big picture. And it said, well — Here's the defense he elected to put on, and this is a tough sell because. But then it quotes what happened with the jury, and it ends its analysis for saying this evidence would have moved the jury to convict Vasquez without a nudge from anything it heard in the government's case. I just don't see that you have supported your theory by what the court says.

Patrick Brindley 1:48

Before the harmless error analysis, the question the Court asks is what we have to decide is whether a reasonable jury would convict him absent the error. And so the question that they ask doesn't require any consideration of the error. And the conclusion they reached that he would be convicted without any consideration of the error also doesn't consider the error. They do not address the error or its impact at all despite a robust dissent which set forth the extraordinary prejudicial possible impact of this error. They don't disagree with the dissent. They simply don't address

Elena Kagan 2:23

it at all. Could you tell me what the error actually was? I see — and you can add another. Three potential things about these calls or three potential errors. One, that They proved, as a matter of fact, that she was biased. But as the majority points out, she already said she was before the tapes were played. So whatever error may have been occasioned by the jury using the tapes as for the truth, it really was cumulative to an already admitted bias. The second is some sort of ambiguous statement by her that all of them were in trouble, meaning all the defendants, and a similar statement by the petitioner's lawyer. So what was it that was error that affected or influenced the jury among these three choices?

Patrick Brindley 3:27

MR. The statements from counsel, two statements. that everyone was going to lose the case, which was repeated several times by government counsel during the cross-examination. It was

Elena Kagan 3:39

never referenced in the summations, however, or in the reply.

Patrick Brindley 3:43

They were not specific. The recordings were referenced, and they told them to look at the recordings. They didn't reference that specific statement. It was referenced three times in the cross-examination. When the witness suggested that who was going to lose the case only referred to her husband, the government corrected her and said, no, it was everyone, and then they played the tape to make that clear. They also played a portion of a recording where it said that counsel was talking to Mr. Vazquez about pleading guilty. Now, if you take those two statements together for their truth, what they mean is that counsel believes he's guilty and was telling him he should plead that way.

Elena Kagan 4:15

So that's the error that you think influenced this trial?

Patrick Brindley 4:20

I think that's the most substantial

Elena Kagan 4:21

one. Now, tell me what in this record reflects that influence. The fact that they asked for her testimony, well, she was your client's entire defense. So what does asking for her testimony show that they were interested in that particular part of the transcript?