to elicit 'cooperation' ”). 18 . 372 U.S. 528, 83 S.Ct. 917, 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963). 19 . See id. at 530-34, 83 S.Ct. 917. 20 . Id. at 534, 83 S.Ct. 917. 21 . The Arizona case that the State attempts to analogize to this one, State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 534, 937 P.2d 1182 (App.1996), is inapposite. The trial court jailed the witnesses in Jones only after they failed to honor their subpoenas and released them after they testified. See id. at 1194. Unlike Raphael, the defendant in Jones presented no evidence that the violation of the witnesses’ due process rights affected their testimony. See id. at 1194-95. 22 . Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), partially overruled by Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 622, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 23 . Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. at 629,
holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that federal appellate courts are authorized to engage in constitutional harmless error analysis in the first instance when a state appellate court does not undertake such an analysis and that such error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases holding that beyond reasonable doubt standard not required in termination cases