Mark Andrew Harrington v. State of Iowa

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a violation of the Confrontation Clause can constitute harmless error
• requiring a defendant to show that \[a] reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of [the witness'] credibility had [defense] counsel been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross examination\ (alteration in original)
• requiring a defendant to show that “[a] reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of [the witness’] credibility had [defense] counsel been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross examination” (alteration in original)
• listing factors: (1) importance of witness's testimony to entire case; (2) whether testimony was cumulative; (3) whether corroborating or contradicting evidence existed; (4) degree of cross-examination actually permitted; and (5) overall strength of government's case
• requiring a defendant to show that “[a] reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of [the witness’s] credibility had [defense] counsel been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination” (quoting Van Arsdail, 475 U.S. at 680)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).