▁has ▁identified ▁a ▁narrow ▁range ▁of ▁errors ▁that ▁require ▁automatic ▁revers al ; ▁for ▁all ▁other ▁errors , ▁the ▁decision ▁of ▁a ▁lower ▁court ▁will ▁be ▁u ph eld ▁if ▁the ▁error ▁was ▁har ml ess . ▁In ▁ 1 9 6 7 , ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁ruled ▁in ▁Chap man ▁v . ▁California ▁that ▁a ▁constitution al ▁error ▁will ▁only ▁be ▁considered ▁har ml ess ▁when ▁the ▁court ▁is ▁" able ▁to ▁declare ▁a ▁belief ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁har ml ess ▁beyond ▁a ▁reasonable ▁doubt ". ▁Additionally , ▁when ▁review ing ▁federal ▁habe as ▁cor pus ▁pet itions , ▁a ▁pet ition er ▁must ▁demonstrate ▁that ▁an ▁error ▁" had ▁substantial ▁and ▁inj ur ious ▁effect ▁or ▁influence ▁in ▁determ ining ▁the ▁j ury ' s ▁ver dict ". ▁The ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁has ▁also ▁ruled ▁that ▁when ▁review ing ▁a ▁determ ination ▁of ▁har ml ess ness ▁under ▁Chap man , ▁the ▁A ED PA ▁mand ates ▁that ▁the ▁review ing ▁court ▁may ▁not ▁grant ▁a ▁pet ition ▁for ▁habe as ▁cor pus ▁" unless ▁the ▁har ml ess ness ▁determ ination ▁itself ▁was ▁un reason able ". ▁According ▁to ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court , ▁the ▁r ationale ▁underlying ▁this ▁doctrine ▁is ▁the ▁public ▁policy ▁concern ▁that ▁states ▁courts ▁should ▁not ▁be ▁forced ▁to ▁undert ake ▁the ▁" ard uous ▁task " ▁of ▁re try ing ▁criminal ▁defend ants ▁" based ▁on ▁mere ▁spec ulation ▁that ▁the ▁def endant ▁was ▁pre jud iced ▁by ▁trial ▁error ". ▁ ▁Ar rest ▁and ▁Tri al