[1] On October 17, 1962, Ruth Elizabeth Chapman and Thomas Leroy Teale arrived together at a motel in Fresno, California, renting a room with a bad check.

[3] They were then seen around 2 am at another bar, the Spot Club, where the only people inside were Chapman, Teale, and the bartender, a man named Billy Dean Adcock.

[3] The next morning, the Spot Club was found in disarray, with $260 missing, papers from the register scattered around, and Adcock's routine tasks left undone.

"[1] As such, the prosecution spoke extensively and repeatedly about their failure to testify, arguing that their silence meant they couldn't refute the evidence.

While he may not have confessed to the crime, nevertheless the admissions which he made to his fellow inmate are so damaging that, when considered with the other substantial evidence, the proof of his guilt must be deemed overwhelming.

Nevertheless the persuasive, circumstantial web of evidence which implicated her was not refuted, and the only real defense which she urged at the trial level was her claimed inability to form a criminal intent, which she sought to establish through expert witnesses.

The majority noted that all 50 states had harmless error rules, and that Congress had instructed federal courts in 28 U. S. C. § 2111 that "judgments shall not be reversed for 'errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

"[1][5] Also, the majority disliked the fact that California's rule put the burden of proof on defendants to show a miscarriage of justice.

"[1] Applying the new rule to Chapman and Teale's trial, the majority found that the prosecution's extensive comments on their silence was easily enough to create a reasonable doubt.

[1][6] Stewart worried that the majority opinion could be interpreted as requiring harmless error analysis in all situations and for all violations of the Constitution.