Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/925

 502ORD$$1I 02-10-99 16:45:48 PGT•ORD1BV (Bound Volume)

1018

OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Blackmun, J., dissenting

502 U. S.

nell Warren, another co-conspirator who had entered into a cooperating plea agreement. Warren established the link between Smith and Miller and introduced statements by still another coconspirator (who did not testify) that Smith had obtained shanks (prison-made knives) in preparation for the killing. Warren also testified that Smith had used a shank to stab the victim. Other witnesses testified that Miller stabbed the victim, while Smith restrained the only guard in the room. On cross-examination, the court pre-empted defense counsel’s attempt to question Warren about his possible incentives for testifying as a Government witness. In response to the judge’s questioning, Warren gave contradictory testimony as to whether or not his lawyer had told him that he would probably receive a lesser sentence by pleading guilty than if he were tried and convicted. Over defense counsel’s objections, the court then refused to permit further questions. The jury convicted Smith of conspiracy to commit murder and second-degree murder. Smith appealed, asserting that the court had violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by denying him the ability to show bias or self-interest in the witness. For purposes of the appeal, the Court of Appeals assumed that constitutional error was committed and that reversal was required unless the error could be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In reviewing the Government’s evidence against Smith, the Court of Appeals explained that it was “[e]ssentially discounting Warren’s testimony except as it is corroborated by other evidence, and considering all that remains in the light most favorable to the government. . . .” See United States v. Smith, No. 89–5475 (CA4, Dec. 10, 1990), App. to Pet. for Cert. 12, affirmance order, 919 F. 2d 734. The court found that this evidence, “obviously sufficient to convict if believed,” was contradicted only by “Smith’s facially implausible testimony that he held the guard only to protect him.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 13. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that any error in restricting Smith’s impeachment of Warren was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As we made clear in Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U. S. 249 (1988), the question “is not whether the legally admitted evidence was sufficient to support” the verdict; rather, the question is “whether the [prosecution] has proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ”