Following a review of the facts and procedural history of the case, as well as an analysis of the constitutional issues at stake, the author challenges the widespread belief that Fulminante represents a withdrawal from individual rights. Instead, the ruling increases the protection of individual rights by raising the standard by which the courts must judge coerced confessions, while simultaneously instituting a review measure, namely harmless error analysis, that is consistent with the basic purpose of a criminal trial and with the treatment of other constitutional errors. The author maintains that the ruling applying a harmless error test to coerced confessions actually represents a compromise between criminal rights advocates and law enforcement officers. 187 notes