Whether courts should follow the direction of Fulminante and use 'extreme caution' before finding the admission of a confession is harmless error

In Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279, 296 (1991) , the Court recognized that a “confession is like no other evidence.” The Court thus held that a reviewing court must “exercise extreme caution before determining that the admission of a confession at trial was harmless.” Id. (emphasis added) . Decades after Fulminante , the Ninth Circuit faithfully followed the Court’s “extreme caution” admonition in its own precedent. See, e.g., Jones v. Harrington, 829 F.3d 1128, 1142 (9th Cir. 2016) ; Garcia v. Long, 808 F.3d 771, 784 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fulminante and explaining that the Court must use “extreme caution” in a harmlessness analysis); Martinez v. Cate, 903 F.3d 982, 999 (9th Cir. 2018) (same). Despite its consistent invocation of Fulminant e’s “extreme caution” rule, the Ninth Circuit application of Fulminante ’s edict is not harmonious. In Mr. Ruiz Rivera’s case and others, the Ninth Circuit is haphazardly applying Fulminant e, or ignoring its language altogether. Accordingly, the question presented is: Whether courts should follow the direction of Fulminante and use “extreme caution” before finding the admission of a confession is harmless error. prefix PARTIES ,