De Lester v. Maurice Junious

MEMORANDUM

De Edward Lester appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Lester contends that he should be granted habeas relief because illicitly-attained incriminating statements were admitted at trial and caused actual prejudice. Lester relies on Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 , 106 S.Ct. 477 , 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), which held that “the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accused’s right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent,” Id. at 176 , 106 S.Ct. 477 , and that such “incriminating statements pertaining to pending charges are inadmissible at the trial of those charges.” Id. at 180 , 106 S.Ct. 477 .

Without deciding whether Moulton was violated, we conclude that Lester has failed to show that the introduction of the statements had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 755 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 687 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)). The tainted evidence was merely “in effect, cumulative” of other…