Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the Esparza harmless error standard, instead of the Brecht harmless error standard on federal habeas review, when the state court failed to apply Chapman on direct review

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Ruelas ov. Wolfenbarger, 580 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2009) acknowledged that this court’s seminal decision in Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) did not overule Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (2008) (per curiam). In Ruelas, the Sixth Circuit held that a federal habeas court is free to apply the Esparza harmless error standard to determine whether a state court of appeals reasonably applied the Chapman harmless error standard on direct review. In the decision below, infra, App. 3a, the court of Appeals applied this standard. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court did not apply the Chapman harmless error standard on direct review. This case presents the following questions: 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the Esparza harmless error standard, instead of the Brecht harmless error standard on federal habeas review, when the state court failed to apply Chapman on direct review. 2. Whether a trial court’s erroneous denial of a request for a self-protection instruction as to the lesser included offenses of second-degree manslaughter and reckless homicide may be deemed harmless.