Hey, y'all, want to make a quick note before we jump into this episode.

We recorded this episode and not like 12, 15 hours later, Calais dropped the Supreme

Court decision that has basically put the final nail in the coffin of the Voting Rights Act.

So, just so you know, this episode is about Brecht, but our episode about Calais is coming out in

two days. So stay tuned for that. We'll hear our argument now in number 91.7358. Todd A. Brecht

versus Gordon A. Abramson.

Hey everyone. This is Leon from Prologue Projects. For today, Peter, Riannon, and Michael are talking about Brecht v. Abramson. The case from 1993 centered around the right to remain silent and the

concept of harmless error. Todd Brecht was charged with murder for shooting his brother-in-law.

During his trial, Brecht testified that the shooting had been an accident,

an explanation that prosecutors sought to undermine by pointing out to the jury

that Brecht had never shared it during the police investigation.

Brecht was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

On appeal, he argued that the prosecution's reference

to his silence, which famously cannot be used against you in a court of law, violated his right

to due process. Brecht ultimately filed a writ of habeas, and his case made it to Justice William

Rehnquist's Supreme Court. In a five-four decision, the justices upheld a conviction,

finding that the prosecution's conduct was,

quote, a harmless error.

This is 5 to 4, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

Welcome to 5 to 4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have sedated our civil rights, like my co-host, sedating himself.

I'm Peter. I'm here with Riannon.

Hey.

...