context: The reasonable possibility inquiry governing the district court's determination is similar to that made in determining whether a trial error of constitutional dimension is harmless: that is, whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 136 F.3d 986, 994
citation_a.parenthetical: equating reasonable possibility determination regarding extrinsic evidence in jury room to harmless error review
citation_a.sentence: See Coleman v. Burnett, 477 F.2d 1187, 1211 n. 158 (D.C.Cir.1973) (noting that “[i]n Chapman it was held that before a federal constitutional error can be held ‘harmless,’ the court must be of the belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt [and] must find that there is no reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction”) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 5.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), overruled in part by Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), and Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963)) (emphasis added); United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283, 287 (D.C.Cir.1994) (“For most constitutional errors, an appellate court is to reverse if it entertains a ‘reasonable doubt’ about whether the error affected the outcome below.”); see also Pyles v. Johnson, 136 F.3d 986, 994 (5th Cir.1998) (equating reasonable possibility determination regarding extrinsic evidence in jury room to harmless error review).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 24 F.3d 283, 287
citation_b.parenthetical: "For most constitutional errors, an appellate court is to reverse if it entertains a 'reasonable doubt' about whether the error affected the outcome below."
citation_b.sentence: See Coleman v. Burnett, 477 F.2d 1187, 1211 n. 158 (D.C.Cir.1973) (noting that “[i]n Chapman it was held that before a federal constitutional error can be held ‘harmless,’ the court must be of the belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt [and] must find that there is no reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction”) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 5.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), overruled in part by Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), and Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963)) (emphasis added); United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283, 287 (D.C.Cir.1994) (“For most constitutional errors, an appellate court is to reverse if it entertains a ‘reasonable doubt’ about whether the error affected the outcome below.”); see also Pyles v. Johnson, 136 F.3d 986, 994 (5th Cir.1998) (equating reasonable possibility determination regarding extrinsic evidence in jury room to harmless error review).